No detail given on Misrepresentation 212(a)(6)(C)(I) on the refusal letter

[John & Rose 7,239]

On 9/30/2021 at 2:50 AM, pushbrk said:

In cases like this, it is common that the person denied the visa, has a pretty good idea what was misrepresented in the past.  The only other applicable agency is USCIS.

I’ve never seen a denial where neither party had a clue, including mine. 

[John & Rose 7,239]

On 9/30/2021 at 10:37 PM, Allaboutwaiting said:

It seems he didn't disclose there was a crime as the case was dropped.

I was denied for a 30 year old misdemeanor where the charges was dropped AND the arrest was expunged through the Circuit Court. The arrest matters not the conviction and failing to disclose will be a great reason for denial. 
 

Item Number 4.a.  Criminal Information.  Indicate whether you have ever been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, convicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance in any country, for any offenses other than those you have already outlined in the previous section.  Unless a traffic incident was alcohol- or drug-related or involved a fine of $500 or more, you do not need to provide information on it.  

[pushbrk 12,882]

3 minutes ago, John & Rose said:

I was denied for a 30 year old misdemeanor where the charges was dropped AND the arrest was expunged through the Circuit Court. The arrest matters not the conviction and failing to disclose will be a great reason for denial. 
 

Item Number 4.a.  Criminal Information.  Indicate whether you have ever been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, convicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance in any country, for any offenses other than those you have already outlined in the previous section.  Unless a traffic incident was alcohol- or drug-related or involved a fine of $500 or more, you do not need to provide information on it.  

Curious whether there was a finding of misrepresentation involved in your denial.

 

[John & Rose 7,239]

4 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

Curious whether there was a finding of misrepresentation involved in your denial.

 

Not in my case. Just failure to disclose. We got married and we are 200 days into ROC now. 

[pushbrk 12,882]

2 minutes ago, John & Rose said:

Not in my case. Just failure to disclose. We got married and we are 200 days into ROC now. 

So, it was a K1 case denied by USCIS?

 

[John & Rose 7,239]

5 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

So, it was a K1 case denied by USCIS?

 

No. It was denied during AP. The CO took the passports and they were returned a few days later with the 221(g). 

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

1 hour ago, John & Rose said:

I was denied for a 30 year old misdemeanor where the charges was dropped AND the arrest was expunged through the Circuit Court. The arrest matters not the conviction and failing to disclose will be a great reason for denial. 

I actually thought of your case when the OP mentioned the dropped charges.

 

It seems to me that the OP might have more than one issue and his concern is which one exactly was the one behind the denial.

 

 

[John & Rose 7,239]

10 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

I actually thought of your case when the OP mentioned the dropped charges.

 

It seems to me that the OP might have more than one issue and his concern is which one exactly was the one behind the denial.

 

 

If there is one thing we know for sure is there is always more to the story. There may be facts that haven’t been mentioned yet. I do know that this is serious and they do look for complete honesty in this process, especially with K-1 where they have a legal obligation to protect an unsuspecting beneficiary. I know I was wrong and no matter how it happened and who’s advice I was following, it was ultimately my mistake as I signed the petition. I was responsible for what is in it. 
 

It seems like the OP already had challenges even before this petition happened. The government saves all the information and it can come back to bite ‘em. 

[Soloenta 2,218]

On 9/29/2021 at 9:43 PM, GreenDoggie said:

 

Found this at a website. We recieved a 212(a) can't remember the exact one but it was fraud and very bad. There was zero evidence we fought it and won. If you need the website (lawyer site) let me know. It was the best explanation I have found.

212(a)(6)(C)(i) Material Misrepresentation / Fraud

Material, willful misrepresentation or fraud is the second most “popular” grounds for inadmissibility among consular officers — and one of the most complicated areas of immigration law. The consequences for making such a misrepresentation are draconian: a lifetime bar from the United States. This is why consular officers are cautioned to be careful in making such a decision, with such decisions subject to “strict scrutiny” and requiring “substantial evidence” to support them.

In the visa context, this section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 212(a)(6)(C)(i), requires three elements:

1. The visa applicant made a misrepresentation;
2. The visa applicant made this misrepresentation willfully; and
3. The visa applicant's misrepresentation was material.

A misrepresentation is a statement not in accord with the truth — made by either the visa applicant or his agent on his behalf. It must be a statement or a submitted document; silence is not considered a misrepresentation. So the fact that a tour agency or visa consultant erroneously completed a visa application does not “save” the applicant. Similarly, an applicant who does not know English is not “saved” because he misunderstood a question; the inaccurate information is still considered a misrepresentation.

However, such applicants can attempt to challenge these findings on the basis that they did not willfully make the misrepresentation. A willful statement is made intentionally and deliberately, knowing it is untrue. The test is a subjective one: did this person willfully make a misrepresentation? An accusation that he should have known it was a misrepresentation is not sufficient to make a finding.

Materiality can also be a very tricky determination. In general, the term “material” means a misrepresentation which might have led a consular officer to find a person ineligible for a visa. Some examples in the context of applying for a B visa:

• failing to disclose the existence of a relative in the United States;
• lying that one is married;
• denying that the applicant had previously been in the United States;
• failing to disclose a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude.

However, if the information is readily available to the consular officer by a check in the consular database, then the misrepresentation cannot serve as the basis for a 6C finding. Also, in petition-based cases, a consular officer can make a recommendation to DHS to make a finding of willful, material misrepresentation, but it is up to DHS to make the final determination. Nonaction by DHS on such a recommendation (e.g., the expiration of the validity of the petition) should not serve as the basis for the formal entry of a 6C decision.

US immigration law does not stipulate to a statute of limitations. This means that if an applicant committed a willful, material misrepresentation at any time in the visa process — even 15–20 years ago — a consular officer can still permanently bar the applicant under Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i). This holds true even if the applicant received visas after the misrepresentation. Such consular decisions are becoming more and more common, with consuls ignoring the fact that their consular predecessors reviewed the same issue and nevertheless issued visas. Such decisions are particularly ripe for challenge; putting aside the policy arguments as to why these findings are problematic, legally, such decisions are fraught with deficiencies. After all, even if there had been a misrepresentation, how can an officer judge “willfulness” and “materiality” 15–20 years later?

If the decision is not challenged, waivers are available in certain cases. Applicants subject to these findings are eligible for nonimmigrant waivers. Spouses, fiancees, and children of US citizens and permanent residents are eligible for immigrant waivers; parents are not.

As you can see, these decisions can be very complicated. They can and should be challenged if they do not have a factual or legal basis.

 

[PBoland 7]

https://visarefusal.com/inadmissibility/material-misrepresentation-fraud/
 

You stated that something in the application was ‘left blank’ - that is NOT a material misrepresentation.  It’s not a representation at all.  That better be the crux of your attorney’s motion.  Good luck.

 

[GreenDoggie 9]

Thank you all for your help and attention to this topic.

[GreenDoggie 9]

27 minutes ago, PBoland said:

https://visarefusal.com/inadmissibility/material-misrepresentation-fraud/
 

You stated that something in the application was ‘left blank’ - that is NOT a material misrepresentation.  It’s not a representation at all.  That better be the crux of your attorney’s motion.  Good luck.

 

It really was left blank, which is why me and my lawyer was perturbed; and we asked multiple times for details.

[GreenDoggie 9]

10 hours ago, Soloenta said:

Found this at a website. We recieved a 212(a) can't remember the exact one but it was fraud and very bad. There was zero evidence we fought it and won. If you need the website (lawyer site) let me know. It was the best explanation I have found

 

Yes. Please tell me. 

[GreenDoggie 9]

13 hours ago, John & Rose said:

I was denied for a 30 year old misdemeanor where the charges was dropped AND the arrest was expunged through the Circuit Court. The arrest matters not the conviction and failing to disclose will be a great reason for denial. 
 

Item Number 4.a.  Criminal Information.  Indicate whether you have ever been arrested, cited, charged, indicted, convicted, fined, or imprisoned for breaking or violating any law or ordinance in any country, for any offenses other than those you have already outlined in the previous section.  Unless a traffic incident was alcohol- or drug-related or involved a fine of $500 or more, you do not need to provide information on it.  

We disclosed it-on the I-130, probably-from the beginning. We sent court records and police/sheriff records from where we thought we needed them from when we got a "request for additional documents" from the embassy regarding that case against me that later got dropped. 

[GreenDoggie 9]

On 9/30/2021 at 9:53 PM, carmel34 said:

Did the officer who did the interview say that a waiver is even an option?  A waiver for misrepresentation is only available at the discretion of the officer, it is not always available.  If in fact a waiver was approved by the officer, then some deeper research into past visa applications is in order here, to identify the source of the misrepresentation, all of the facts, whether it was stating "married" on a previous visa application when in fact the beneficiary was not really married, a visa overstay, it could be many things but most likely related to a previous case via USCIS, or maybe a background check by the FBI that identified something like a criminal history that was not truthfully disclosed.  Good luck, I hope the waiver is available and that you can get to the root cause of the inadmissibility finding.  Having a good attorney should help if you can go down the waiver path.

Yes, in the refusal letter, it said that I was eligible to file a I-601.