IR5 Interview

[SkolVikes 19]

Would an attorney be able to do anything? I find this pretty straightforward with no wiggle room?  I'm not sure what the argument could even be? Would a lawsuit in federal court be the best route?

[Boiler 45,488]

You would have to seek advice from a lawyer and provide them with the facts.

 

 

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

26 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

Would an attorney be able to do anything? I find this pretty straightforward with no wiggle room?  I'm not sure what the argument could even be? Would a lawsuit in federal court be the best route?

Good luck.  This looks difficult and expensive (if even winnable).  I hope you can find a good attorney. 

[SkolVikes 19]

Just now, Crazy Cat said:

Good luck.  This looks difficult and expensive (if even winnable).  I hope you can find a good attorney. 

Thanks for the optimism. Expensive isn't in my dictionary. I would represent myself in Federal court if that's the route I go.

[SkolVikes 19]

As noted my a previous user this law changed in 2017 to a 90 day rule. I wonder if they could be grandfather in to the previous 30 day rule, under the 30 day rule it's not required for the CO to impose this ban, and they would be outside the 30 day required window under the old law.

[Boiler 45,488]

I thought it was previously a 60 day rule and I appreciate you have not answered when they started working but the refusal said within 30 days.

 

Presumably they supplied the Consulate with the dates.

 

Represent yourself? How are you party to this case?

Edited September 14, 2021 by Boiler

[SkolVikes 19]

Just now, Boiler said:

I thought it was previously a 60 day rule and I appreciate you have not answered when the started working but the refusal said within 30 days.

 

Presumably they supplied the Consulate with the dates.

 

Represent yourself? How are you party to this case?

My MIL was working within 20 days. My FIL  after 30 days. The exact dates were not provided to the consulate as they couldn't recall 20 years back. But the months and years were provided. Lets not get off topic on how I would represent in court but lets focus on the meat and potatoes here.

[Boiler 45,488]

Well based on my admittedly limited knowledge dinner is over.

 

The time for legal representation I would anticipate was before they first applied.

[jan22 3,053]

On 9/14/2021 at 11:29 AM, SkolVikes said:

As noted my a previous user this law changed in 2017 to a 90 day rule. I wonder if they could be grandfather in to the previous 30 day rule, under the 30 day rule it's not required for the CO to impose this ban, and they would be outside the 30 day required window under the old law.

 

On 9/14/2021 at 11:54 AM, SkolVikes said:

My MIL was working within 20 days. My FIL  after 30 days. The exact dates were not provided to the consulate as they couldn't recall 20 years back. But the months and years were provided. Lets not get off topic on how I would represent in court but lets focus on the meat and potatoes here.

Prior to the change, it was actually a "30/60" day rule.  If the inappropriate activity (in this case, working on a tourist visa) occured/began within 30 days of arrival, the Consular Officer could apply a finding of ineligibility under 6C without prior approval of anyone except their Embassy supervisor. If the inappropriate activity took place within 60 days of entry, a 6C finding could only be applied with concurrence from the Department of State Visa Office.  The "rule" was/is based on the implication that the inappropriate activity was what the individual intended to do from the start, i.e., was actually the intended purpose of the entry to the US all along.

 

Based on the timing you cite, a 6C finding for the mother could have been made without consulting Washington -- it was clearly less than 30 days after entry.  The finding for your father would have required concurrence from the State Department.  However, given the facts as you outlined -- a family enters the  United States saying they are coming for "vacation", then one adult begins working in less than three weeks after that entry,  followed by the second adult within less than 60 days, and they have everything with them to do that (no reason to return home for anything, any needed documents, etc) -- State Department concurrence at the time would have been given for a 6C finding for the father as well.

Edited October 9, 2021 by jan22

[Harshaan 1]

On 9/14/2021 at 11:58 AM, SkolVikes said:

Would an attorney be able to do anything? I find this pretty straightforward with no wiggle room?  I'm not sure what the argument could even be? Would a lawsuit in federal court be the best route?

Did you already file waiver 601?

[Harshaan 1]

On 9/9/2021 at 10:37 PM, 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. (The same charge)

Did you file I 601?

[kokoro88 1]

On 9/9/2021 at 1:15 PM, SkolVikes said:

Hello all. 

 

My wife(USC) petitioned for her parents to enter on  IR5.

 

The interview was today in Rio and was denied. My in laws resided in the past in the USA, they had a 10 year bar. That ended over a year ago. The visa was denied under 6C1 (212(a)(6)(C)(i)  

 

After researching it, it is based on fraud. I asked my in laws how it was denied on fraud and he stated it was due to working while being illegal(on a tourist visa, over stayed) He always filed his taxes and work under a tax id number. This was always disclosed if the paperwork requested it. 

 

The Rio consulate is stating they can file a I-601. The last time I researched I-601 waivers I found that parents were not eligible. Has that since been changed? The reason why I ask this is because when I petitioned my for my wife over a decade ago they gave her the incorrect ban and I had to inform the consulate of that in which they corrected. So it seems these type of errors occur often there if this is in fact one?

 

One thing I would like to add, years ago they tried this same process and they had the 10 year ban. The 6C1 (212(a)(6)(C)(i)   denial was never listed as one of the reasons. But now it is 10 years later?

Hello!  May I ask how did you inform the consulate about the 'incorrect ban'? Was it another ban that applied or there shouldn't be ban at all and you were able to correct it? Thanks....

[Boiler 45,488]

9 minutes ago, Nig said:

 

Exceptions to the 90-Day Rule

The 90-day rule is used for every applicant who wants to change or adjust their status. Immediate relatives of citizens of the United States are exempt from misrepresentation for the first 30 to 60 days.

https://blog.myrawealth.com › insights

What is the 90-Day Rule? — - MYRA

They were interviewed by DoS - Consulate

[TBoneTX 45,287]

A post has been removed because another member's text was changed into another language inside quote-boxes.

 

If you must translate someone's English into another language, do it off-site for your own benefit and refer to it privately for your own understanding; avoid posting altered text.

 

VJ Moderation

[SkolVikes 19]

Wow, I haven't been on here in a few months. Check this out. Just woke up to this email

 

This email contains important information about the immigrant visa case listed above for which you are listed as a point of contact. Please read it carefully!

Our records indicate that you were previously found ineligible to receive a visa under Section (212(a)(6)(C)(i)) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for committing fraud or misrepresenting a material fact to a consular or immigration officer in order to obtain an immigration benefit under U.S. law.

The U.S Consulate General in Rio de Janeiro has received additional information that your case may no longer be ineligible under Section (212(a)(6)(C)(i)) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

If you are still interested in immigrating to the United States, please follow the instructions below: