IR5 Interview

[HRQX 4,145]

3 hours ago, Boiler said:

A waiver can be filed by your wife

The form is filed by the visa applicant but in this case there is no QR. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-601instr.pdf "An individual who is ineligible to be admitted to the United States as an immigrant or to adjust status in the United States, and certain nonimmigrant applicants who are inadmissible, must file this application to seek a waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility."

[SkolVikes 19]

13 minutes ago, HRQX said:

The form is filed by the visa applicant but in this case there is no QR. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-601instr.pdf "An individual who is ineligible to be admitted to the United States as an immigrant or to adjust status in the United States, and certain nonimmigrant applicants who are inadmissible, must file this application to seek a waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility."

If that's the case why did the consulate state to file i-601? 

[Boiler 45,486]

9 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

If that's the case why did the consulate state to file i-601? 

They gave the opportunity, somethings can not be resolved by failing a waiver, this potentially can.

 

I am going to assume there is not a QR available, the Consulate is not to know if there is or not, and if there is whether there are sufficient hardships to qualify.

 

 

[Demise 1,283]

What's the full story behind them getting slapped with the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar? Did they submit any fake documentation while trying to obtain the tourist visas or did the consulate seriously give it to them for unlawful employment?

 

If it's the latter then the consulate erred in applying the ban because if this was the case then literally any overstayer would be subject to it.

[HRQX 4,145]

3 minutes ago, Demise said:

If it's the latter then the consulate erred in applying the ban because if this was the case then literally any overstayer would be subject to it.

If it's the latter should they make contact through LegalNet@State.gov ? https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM010304.html

[Demise 1,283]

3 minutes ago, HRQX said:

If it's the latter should they make contact through LegalNet@State.gov ? https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM010304.html

Maybe, I'm not that versed with consular denials, especially that there's no well defined appeal process because officially - there's no appeal process. I suppose LegalNet would be the right place to hit up or maybe involve the sponsor's senator or representative to inquire if DOS applied the law correctly to the case.

[SkolVikes 19]

14 minutes ago, Demise said:

What's the full story behind them getting slapped with the 212(a)(6)(C)(i) bar? Did they submit any fake documentation while trying to obtain the tourist visas or did the consulate seriously give it to them for unlawful employment?

 

If it's the latter then the consulate erred in applying the ban because if this was the case then literally any overstayer would be subject to it.

My in laws have nothing to hide or lie. Being transparent and honest is important. I have emailed the consulate and also submitted a letter on the consulate site for the "contact us form". My in laws stated they did this to multiple people today. (The same charge)

Edited September 10, 2021 by SkolVikes

[SkolVikes 19]

1 minute ago, Demise said:

Maybe, I'm not that versed with consular denials, especially that there's no well defined appeal process because officially - there's no appeal process. I suppose LegalNet would be the right place to hit up or maybe involve the sponsor's senator or representative to inquire if DOS applied the law correctly to the case.

I will also attach the letter to legalnet, I have yet to find this email. Thanks!

[Demise 1,283]

6 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

My in laws have nothing to hide or lie. Being transparent and honest is important. I have emailed the consulate and also submitted a letter on the consulate site for the "contact us form". My in laws stated they did this to multiple people today. 

Yeah if that's the case I seriously believe that the consulate erred in applying this bar. This bar is given in cases where you either obtained the documentation to enter US under false pretenses (i.e. lied or given fake documents to the consular officer), or entered or tried to enter US on fake documents or documents belonging to someone else or lied your ### off during the inspection.

 

Working illegally does not trigger any bar. Neither does something like lets say using a fake green card to score a job.

 

Note that misrepresenting yourself as a US citizen under any circumstances (e.g. using a fake US passport to enter US or to score a job) will make you inadmissible for life under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(II) with no waivers available.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Demise

[HRQX 4,145]

4 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

I will also attach the letter to legalnet, I have yet to find this email. Thanks!

Just note that the email format "must follow the guidelines" https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM010304.html "Requirements for LegalNet Inquiries"

[SalishSea 17,828]

1 hour ago, SkolVikes said:

If that's the case why did the consulate state to file i-601? 

Because they don't necessarily know the minutiae of this family's relatives in the US.   And honestly, possibly to placate them a bit after delivering the bad news.

[SkolVikes 19]

11 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Because they don't necessarily know the minutiae of this family's relatives in the US.   And honestly, possibly to placate them a bit after delivering the bad news.

Probably to provide false hope... I hope Legalnet can help out or Rio themselves...212(a)(6)(c)(i) is a permanent ban in our case. Such a disappointment, I look forward to Rio replying and getting to the bottom of this. Thanks everyone.

 

[Demise 1,283]

4 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

Probably to provide false hope... I hope Legalnet can help out or Rio themselves...212(a)(6)(c)(i) is a permanent ban in our case. Such a disappointment, I look forward to Rio replying and getting to the bottom of this. Thanks everyone.

 

Try hitting up a representative or senator too. Most likely your wife, and both parents will have to fill out a privacy release form so the consulate can provide information regarding to the case. In something like that even asking for a justification can make the congressional liaison or whoever looks at this stuff go "Wait, that isn't right".

[SkolVikes 19]

13 hours ago, Demise said:

Try hitting up a representative or senator too. Most likely your wife, and both parents will have to fill out a privacy release form so the consulate can provide information regarding to the case. In something like that even asking for a justification can make the congressional liaison or whoever looks at this stuff go "Wait, that isn't right".

Thanks Denise, I've emailed legalnet, rio, and my US senator Ed Markey. At the end of the day the consulate should have to provide evidence stating the reason why that ban was invoked... I look forward to that as I impatiently check my email 100x a day waiting for a reply.

Edited September 10, 2021 by SkolVikes

[Boiler 45,486]

There seems to be some assumptions here and as I mentioned earlier none of us were at the interviews none of us know what happened or the details of the case.

 

VJ is a DIY site however some things are well beyond DIY.

 

I can think of all sorts of things that could have generated a Misrep finding. I have no idea if any of them are applicable in this case.

 

There are certainly some issues where a Congress person can help, do not see that being applicable here.

 

If the parents want there situation reviewed then a consultation with an Immigration Lawyer focussed on waivers would seem to be the next step.

 

I would anticipate assuming there is nothing obvious we do not know they would need to do a FOIA to get their file.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Boiler