Can a child born out of wedlock before naturalisation by non USC become a us citizen when his/her father naturalise?

[iwannaplay54 985]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

And?

 

So his petitioner filed an I-130 and didn’t disclose his kid. That’s on the petitioner, and bluntly it is perjury, unless the beneficiary lied to the petitioner. If so then that calls into question how genuine the relationship is.  
 

Now that we are beyond the USCIS stage, my question is where is the beneficiary   in the NVC and consular stage? Before or during the interview did the petitioner disclose his kid to the State department?

This one usually falls under “intends to cut off a line of inquiry

 

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-j-chapter-3

 

Either way, under section 6 “Timely Retraction” there is opportunity at interview to fix this.  Once the interview is complete and if this has not been disclosed the deed is done.  It may already be too late as the petition section about beneficiary’s spouse and children was left blank, signed, and submitted.

 

What a mess.  A completely unnecessary one, unless beneficiary is hiding something else (abandoned or not supporting the child?)  That will catch up sooner or later as well.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by iwannaplay54

[Mike E 11,742]

OP says the friend hasn’t interviewed yet.  
 

If OP’s friend does disclose  his kid at the interview then this will call into question how genuine his marriage is since the petitioner didn’t disclose.  
 

So logically then the petitioner would need to provide a statement stating that she knew there was a kid (if she did know) and gives a reason why she didn’t disclose.  
 

However,  I will never advise anyone to self incriminate.  Such advice should only come from a licensed criminal attorney.  
 

The petitioner and beneficiary each need to hire criminal and immigration attorneys licensed to practice federal law.  We are beyond DIY. 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Mike E

[Pinkrlion 2,724]

He will have a challenge to prove that it is his child, since never listed on paperwork.  Including proof of providing care, birth certificate, DNA test, among other proof.  

[SalishSea 18,000]

7 hours ago, Donsmog said:

Same question I asked him and he said, they thought it would affect their application. If he had mentioned the kid, would the kid be a US Citizen upon him naturalising? 

Material misrep.  Not smart.

[JeanneAdil 6,599]

he needs to list the child when he fills out the ds 260 

[Family 4,091]

34 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

he needs to list the child when he fills out the ds 260 

It’s a lengthy thread, but OP indicates that was completed and now waiting for interview, so it’s closed on CEAC. 

[iwannaplay54 985]

1 hour ago, JeanneAdil said:

he needs to list the child when he fills out the ds 260 

He filled it out and omitted the child

[Mike E 11,742]

3 hours ago, Family said:

Take a copy of I-130 ( as filed by Pet) and a copy of DS-260 ( usually completed by Pet , but not an issue) and say OOPS! Sorry Officer this needs an update here is a copy child’s birth cert. and maybe” it’s been a long and confusing process, she thought she only had to list the child if he is coming with me…but my wife did such a great job…” 

 

Which is fine if that is what went down.  But based on what OP said it wasn’t.  No point compounding the perjury. 

[powerpuff 6,745]

4 hours ago, Family said:

but should focus on keeping his USC wife happy for at least 2 years,! 

What an odd thing to say.  So after 2 years, that shouldn’t be the focus? And why does it matter if it’s a USC? So if it’s not a USC, then you shouldn’t be focused on keeping your spouse happy?  

[iwannaplay54 985]

2 hours ago, powerpuff said:

What an odd thing to say.  So after 2 years, that shouldn’t be the focus? And why does it matter if it’s a USC? So if it’s not a USC, then you shouldn’t be focused on keeping your spouse happy?  

Happy wife happy life or so it’s said 😂

[JeanneAdil 6,599]

4 hours ago, iwannaplay54 said:

He filled it out and omitted the child

it didn't actually say that 

says he applied for I 130 for visa but many do not know the ds 260 is the actual visa application 

 

 

if he did  a ds 260 and also didn't put the baby on when he filled it out,  then he purposely omitted 

[iwannaplay54 985]

Just now, JeanneAdil said:

it didn't actually say that 

says he applied for I 130 for visa but many do not know the ds 260 is the actual visa application 

 

 

if he did  a ds 260 and also didn't put the baby on when he filled it out,  then he purposely omitted 

He said they were afraid the child would affect their application.  SMH

 

They both purposely omitted.  That is an I130 question.  It’s a question on everything they will file in the future.  As noted, this couple has created a mess for themselves for something that likely would not have made a difference one way or the other.

 

[Ellie_7 103]

The irony of it all always strikes me. People imagine that something normal such as having offspring will be a problem, and then they lie to the government about it, which actually creates the problem.

[Rocio0010 5,582]

Interesting how he thought that mentioning the child would mess up the process, but then he wants to naturalize said child as well. How USCIS would naturalize a child they didn’t even know existed is beyond our pay grade. 
In addition, he hasn’t had his CR-1 approved yet and is thinking of naturalization already? One thing at a time! 
It is absolutely a mess. However, is it material misrepresentation? My understanding is that misrepresentation is material if the truth would have prevented the beneficiary to obtain a benefit. Having a child does not prevent anyone from getting a CR-1, right? 

[Mike E 11,742]

3 hours ago, Rocio0010 said:

. However, is it material misrepresentation? My understanding is that misrepresentation is material if the truth would have prevented the beneficiary to obtain a benefit. Having a child does not prevent anyone from getting a CR-1, right? 

There is a case to made that this is material misrepresentation 

 

Our rough consensus of where we are with case is that

 

* I-130 is approved 

 

* DQ is done 

 

* DS-260 is filed

 

* no interview is scheduled. 
 

Thus far the petitioner and beneficiary have stated that the beneficiary has no children.  
 

Case 1: Petitioner was unaware there was no child.  Beneficiary is continues this lie until filing I-130 or N-600K for his child.    The beneficiary by failing to disclose to the USA government earlier has failed to disclose a fundamental aspect of how genuine or not the relationship with his wife is. This is a material misrepresentation.  
 

Case 2: Petitioner  was aware there was a child.  Beneficiary continues this lie until N600-K or I-130. The N-400 process requires evidence of good moral character including providing legally required child support.  By failing to disclose the child in the N-400 application or the N-400 interview, the beneficiary has prevented USCIS from examining whether the beneficiary provided legally required child support.  This is material misrepresentation.  
 

Case 3: like case 1, but beneficiary discloses child at the visa interview. Maybe not material misrepresentation, but there is a strong case to be made that  marriage isn’t genuine. I means cases have been denied because one spouse can’t name the other’s employer. A spouse doesn’t know she had a step child? Doesn’t pass the credibility test.  
 

Case 4. Like case 2 but beneficiary discloses child at the visa interview. So the beneficiary is going to claim his wife committed perjury. Doesn’t seems like a genuine marriage to me: tossing your wife under the bus like that.  So now the CO is wondering what else did she lie about.  It would not surprise me if the case is sent back to USCIS and USCIS revoked the I-130.  
 

Case 5: petitioner and beneficiary lie again and say “honest officer we were confused”.  Even if the CO buys it, it is a lie, it is not something anyone on visajourney should advocate for, and if CBP ever goes through one of their phones the second lie will come to light.  Material misrepresentation, and the green card is revoked.