IR5 Interview

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

34 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.

Let us know how it ends.  I don't think you are out of the woods yet...  Thanks. 

[Family 3,988]

11 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

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

That is how the inadmissibility is worded and so mirep/fraud covers it all . Basis for the finding in OP s case was reaching for the 90 and unauthorized behavior ( working on B-2) but remember IR are forgiven. And on review , the Consular Manager reversed finding .

 

 

U) Inconsistent Conduct:  For purposes of applying the 90-day rule, conduct that violates or is otherwise inconsistent with an applicant’s nonimmigrant status depends on the nonimmigrant status the applicant has/had and the activities of the applicant in such status, including, but not limited to:

(i)     (U) Engaging in unauthorized employment on B1/B2 nonimmigrant status. Certain activities may not constitute unauthorized employment, such as those permissible under 9 FAM 402.2-5(E), and you should clarify an applicant's employment activities when make a 6C1 finding under the 90-day rule;

(ii)    (U) Enrolling in a course of study, if such study is not authorized for that nonimmigrant classification (e.g., B1/B2 status);

(iii)    (U) A nonimmigrant in B status, marrying a United States citizen or LPR and taking up residence in the United States.  To establish that an applicant took up residence in the United States before/after marrying a U.S. citizen or LPR, you may consider whether the applicant signed a long-term lease or obtained a mortgage, bills in the applicant’s name, whether the applicant obtained a local driver’s license, and any other evidence that may support a finding that the applicant took up residence in the United States); or

(iv)   (U) Undertaking any other activity for which a change of status (NIV to NIV) or an adjustment of status (NIV to IV) would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment.  Simply filing for a change of status or adjustment of status is not in itself sufficient to support a presumption of misrepresentation under the 90-day rule; the individual must also engage in conduct inconsistent with authorized status without the benefit of such a change of status. Moreover, if an individual engages in the activities for which he/she was admitted, such as to study on a F1 visa, but also engages in unauthorized work without seeking an employment authorization document (EAD), then that is insufficient to justify a presumption of a misrepresentation.

(c)  (U) In cases where you are unsure whether an activity is inconsistent with nonimmigrant status or whether a violation occurred, you may request an AO from L/CA.  

(d)  (U) A consular manager must review all 6C1 findings of ineligibility under the 90-day rule.

[Family 3,988]

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030209.html
 

For a finding of misrep/fraud , there are a few criteria..

[Rocio0010 5,579]

2 hours ago, SkolVikes said:

other arguments

I’m curious…

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

related topics merged.  

[SkolVikes 19]

2 hours ago, Crazy Cat said:

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

misrep was for working within 90 days.... I have that clarified by the consulate... here is the email...

 

"

Both applicants were found  found ineligible for a visa under the 90-day rule for making a misrepresentation that was willful, material, and for an immigration benefit, as defined by INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). See 9 FAM 302.9-4. The applicant willfully and knowingly misrepresented themselves to a U.S. official and the misrepresentation was material:  

 

(1) The applicant arrived in the US on a B1B2 visa 

(2) The applicant stated that his or her intent was to visit the United States 

(3) Within one month of arrival, the applicant started working which is not permitted on a B1/B2 visa.  "

[SkolVikes 19]

42 minutes ago, Rocio0010 said:

I’m curious…

Arguments at the time were trying to get them to agree that the 90 day rule wasn't legally binding but more of a reference. Also was trying to sell the point that they were honest in disclosing their jobs and shouldn't be faced with this violation. Another argument was when they attended their first interview they were slapped with the 10 year bar and told to try again in 10 years and when they did were slapped with another bar. Which I found to be disingenious. Basically I was shot down by the consulate and was told that "Immigrant Visa Chief Unit" had reviewed everything and found that my in laws were in fact barred. (Never heard of the Immigrant Chief Unit, Even after researching it. Assuming it's some sort of a supervisory unit?)

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

12 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

misrep was for working within 90 days.... I have that clarified by the consulate... here is the email...

 

"

Both applicants were found  found ineligible for a visa under the 90-day rule for making a misrepresentation that was willful, material, and for an immigration benefit, as defined by INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i). See 9 FAM 302.9-4. The applicant willfully and knowingly misrepresented themselves to a U.S. official and the misrepresentation was material:  

 

(1) The applicant arrived in the US on a B1B2 visa 

(2) The applicant stated that his or her intent was to visit the United States 

(3) Within one month of arrival, the applicant started working which is not permitted on a B1/B2 visa.  "

I'll defer any additional comments until final action is taken.  I think there is more to come.

[SkolVikes 19]

1 minute ago, Crazy Cat said:

I'll defer any additional comments until final action is taken.  I think there is more to come.

What do you "think" is coming?

[Family 3,988]

1 minute ago, SkolVikes said:

What do you "think" is coming?

I KNOW your in laws are coming soon! Forgive the overconfidence.

[Family 3,988]

7 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

defer any additional comments until final action is taken.  I think there is more to come.

But @Crazy Cathas intuitive sense , so better have all your Other requirements ..cause the only fly in ointment would be unnecessary delay. ( I-864 and financial updated , carry all original civil docs , check that medical exam was correctly done…) 

[SkolVikes 19]

Just now, Family said:

But @Crazy Cathas intuitive sense , so better have all your Other requirements ..cause the only fly in ointment would be unnecessary delay. ( I-864 and financial updated , carry all original civil docs , check that medical exam was correctly done…) 

All of this was done during the last interview in Q4 of 2021. The only issue is the DS-260 is set to expire in 10 days. When logging into Ceac everything is paid from prior and can't update anything. I will communicate this to RIO. When scheduling the Apointment it wasn't actually to attend the Interview, it's the Biometrics apointment that the website prompted us to do. We called biometrics and they stated if an interview is necessary one will be scheduled same day. So we will find out mid next month the results.

[Nig 8]

1 minuto atrás, SkolVikes disse:

Tudo isso foi feito durante a entrevista no quarto trimestre de 2021. O único problema é que o DS-260 está programado para expirar em 10 dias. Ao entrar no Ceac tudo é pago de antemão e não pode atualizar nada. Vou comunicar isso ao RIO. Ao consultar a Consulta não era para agendar a Entrevista, é a consulta de Biometria que o site incitou a fazer. Ligamos para a biometria e eles informam que se fosse necessário uma entrevista seria agendada no mesmo dia. Então, saberemos em meados do próximo mês dos resultados.

About two months ago I read about your denied case since then I started to pray with my friends for your fil and mil and I know that God will provide the victory ✌️I keep in pray until they have the complete victory 

[Family 3,988]

2 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

All of this was done during the last interview in Q4 of 2021. The only issue is the DS-260 is set to expire in 10 days. When logging into Ceac everything is paid from prior and can't update anything. I will communicate this to RIO. When scheduling the Apointment it wasn't actually to attend the Interview, it's the Biometrics apointment that the website prompted us to do. We called biometrics and they stated if an interview is necessary one will be scheduled same day. So we will find out mid next month the results.

Send email to consulate AND to NVC stating the DS-260 concern and ask directly if they will be required to attend interview ( saying that hotel/ lodging arrangements need to be made for trip to Consulate…for example ) They can unlock the DS-260 for required updates.

[SkolVikes 19]

2 minutes ago, Nig said:

About two months ago I read about your denied case since then I started to pray with my friends for your fil and mil and I know that God will provide the victory ✌️I keep in pray until they have the complete victory 

Ty Nig, We are also from South Coast, Massachusetts!