IR5 Interview

[powerpuff 6,697]

59 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

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:

That’s great! Did you end up hiring an attorney? 

[SkolVikes 19]

No, all I did was email Washington right after the denial and received a generic response that they would look into it. I can't possibly imagine what changed? Im stumped, happy, concerned and worried.

[powerpuff 6,697]

1 minute ago, SkolVikes said:

No, all I did was email Washington right after the denial and received a generic response that they would look into it. I can't possibly imagine what changed? Im stumped, happy, concerned and worried.

Looks like they really have looked into it. Please keep us updated! This could be immensely helpful for others in a similar situation.

[SkolVikes 19]

Has anyone seen an email like this before?

[SkolVikes 19]

My in laws were denied months ago at their IR5 interview in RIO, this week we got an email requesting we schedule an interview again. Has anyone ever heard of this?

 

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:

- A new interview in the U.S. Consulate General in Rio de Janeiro will be necessary

[Timona 4,207]

Why were they initially denied?

 

Well, as the email says, reschedule it. You may just be in luck

[SkolVikes 19]

Working within 90 days of a tourist visa. It's been scheduled.

[Timona 4,207]

So you're saying they worked while on a tourist visas? How did embassy know, just curious (You're free to decline to answer this. I'm trying to learn here too)

 

Then I don't understand how they became eligible again. 

 

By the way, there's no timeframe beyond which you can work on a B-2. So no 90 day rule. 

 

I think @Boiler is an expert on ineligibilities.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Timona

[SkolVikes 19]

Ofc working on a tourist visa is illegal but when it's within 90 days it becomes premeditated and fraud in that aspect. In other words there was no attempt at tourism. They know this because my in laws were honest. Hence why I found the fraud to be odd..

[SalishSea 17,828]

1 hour ago, SkolVikes said:

Ofc working on a tourist visa is illegal but when it's within 90 days it becomes premeditated and fraud in that aspect. In other words there was no attempt at tourism. They know this because my in laws were honest. Hence why I found the fraud to be odd..

That makes NO sense.

 

Working on any tourist visa makes them ineligible for a tourist visa.

[Family 3,988]

1 hour ago, SkolVikes said:

Working within 90 days of a tourist visa. It's been scheduled.

The Officer slapped together the 90 day rule & working without authorization …but when Refusal was reviewed ( internally) the Senior Officer realized IR ( immediate relatives) are WAIVED 90 day presumptions and are forgiven working without authorization , therefore NO inadmissibility…Officer made a mistake.

 

No different than if your in-laws had remained here all that time ( in the US ) and did AOS…they would be fine. 
 

So I am glad they cleared it up on their own. 

[nastra30 2,284]

5 hours ago, SkolVikes said:

 

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:

- A new interview in the U.S. Consulate General in Rio de Janeiro will be necessary

Seems USEM is giving your parent another opportunity for another interview. Contact them if you are still interested.

[SkolVikes 19]

7 hours ago, Family said:

The Officer slapped together the 90 day rule & working without authorization …but when Refusal was reviewed ( internally) the Senior Officer realized IR ( immediate relatives) are WAIVED 90 day presumptions and are forgiven working without authorization , therefore NO inadmissibility…Officer made a mistake.

 

No different than if your in-laws had remained here all that time ( in the US ) and did AOS…they would be fine. 
 

So I am glad they cleared it up on their own. 

Thanks, your brilliance is appreciated. When I posted this denial months ago I wish you were around so I could have informed the consulate of this argument, I made other arguments to no success. These forums are a life saver! Will keep everyone posted.

[Family 3,988]

2 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

Thanks, your brilliance is appreciated. When I posted this denial months ago I wish you were around so I could have informed the consulate of this argument, I made other arguments to no success. These forums are a life saver! Will keep everyone posted.

I think it’s the fact that YOU “ made other arguments “ that ultimately got them to clear it. YOU were not going away..so Kudos. Consulate Refusal is usually where DIY ends and help is needed 

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

8 hours ago, Family said:

The Officer slapped together the 90 day rule & working without authorization …but when Refusal was reviewed ( internally) the Senior Officer realized IR ( immediate relatives) are WAIVED 90 day presumptions and are forgiven working without authorization , therefore NO inadmissibility…Officer made a mistake.

 

No different than if your in-laws had remained here all that time ( in the US ) and did AOS…they would be fine. 
 

So I am glad they cleared it up on their own. 

Is misrepresentation forgiven?  If they lied to an IP?  That was the basis for the denial.