IR5 Interview

[Rocio0010 5,579]

12 hours ago, SkolVikes said:

In other words there was no attempt at tourism

Wouldn’t that be misrepresentation? What I’m saying is, I know that unauthorized work is forgiven for IRs. But in this case it was premeditated. And I’m wondering if that is forgiven (I’m not wondering if it’s material misrepresentation, as it is obvious it is!)

[Rocio0010 5,579]

49 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

Also was trying to sell the point that they were honest in disclosing their jobs and shouldn't be faced with this violation.

So you’re saying it’s ok to go against the law, provided you then disclose it?

[SkolVikes 19]

7 minutes ago, Rocio0010 said:

So you’re saying it’s ok to go against the law, provided you then disclose it?

When did I say that? You asked me the arguments and I provided it. Now if you want to argue my arguments I made, look elsewhere.

Edited April 20, 2022 by SkolVikes

[Family 3,988]

Don’t know if this clarifies it better for anyone, but presumption of misrep on 90 day has to meet criteria and “ knowing” and “ willful “ are also spelled out / defined ….and not what we use in every day context/ definition.

 

At 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3)(g)(1)(c), the FAM makes clear that the failure to maintain nonimmigrant status on account of post-entry actions that were inconsistent with representations made when applying for a visa, admission, or an immigration benefit does not, in and of itself, prove that the alien misrepresented his or her intentions at the time of entry. The FAM instructs DOS officers to “consider carefully the precise circumstances of the change of activities when determining whether the applicant made a knowing and willful misrepresentation.” In general, a DOS officer must have “direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to meet the 'reason to believe' standard” in order to find that an alien misrepresented his or her intentions at the time of entry. The “reason to believe standard” is more exacting than “mere suspicion” but less so than the preponderance, or weight, of the evidence standard.

[Chancy 6,241]

1 hour ago, Rocio0010 said:

I know that unauthorized work is forgiven for IRs.

 

Unauthorized work by IRs undergoing AOS is forgiven by USCIS.  The OP's relatives in this case are applying for IR5 visas, not AOS and not dealing with USCIS.  They are dealing with the Department of State, and DOS is not as forgiving as USCIS.  Remember that for visa applications, the 90-day rule actually does apply.

 

[Rocio0010 5,579]

47 minutes ago, Chancy said:

 

Unauthorized work by IRs undergoing AOS is forgiven by USCIS.  The OP's relatives in this case are applying for IR5 visas, not AOS and not dealing with USCIS.  They are dealing with the Department of State, and DOS is not as forgiving as USCIS.  Remember that for visa applications, the 90-day rule actually does apply.

 

Right, that's why I am confused as to why they have forgiven them and decided to take a step back.

[Timona 4,207]

From your post history, looks to me like that ban had already ended and as such, no waiver was needed. My bet is the IO missed that, hence the new email. As such, I highly doubt if your email over the 90 day rule won anything. What won was that the ban had already ended. So when you sent your 90 day email, embassy read it then someone looked over your case to realize the ban was long up.

 

I'm quite sure that if a new B-2 entrant did this and then got a 10 year ban, that 90 day argument won't win anything. They'll have to wait till their ban is up. A tourist visa is a tourist visa. Whether within or outside 90 days, it shouldn't be used to work, or else everyone will be doing this. Who wouldn't want to earn a few dollars then return to their country? 

 

And in your earlier 2021 post, seems your in-laws came on tourists visas, worked for a good while before leaving. Your post from yesterday read like they were only here for 90 days. 

 

Anyways, the ban is up. Proceed as directed by the embassy @SkolVikes

 

@Chancy I don't understand your post above. Kindly elaborate.

 

Thanks to @Ban Hammer for merging the posts. Now everything is clear.

[SkolVikes 19]

1 minute ago, Timona said:

From your post history, looks to me like that ban had already ended and as such, no waiver was needed. My bet is the IO missed that, hence the new email. As such, I highly doubt if your email over the 90 day rule won anything. What won was that the ban had already ended. So when you sent your 90 day email, embassy read it then someone looked over your case to realize the ban was long up.

 

I'm quite sure that if a new B-2 entrant did this and then got a 10 year ban, that 90 day argument won't win anything. They'll have to wait till their ban is up. A tourist visa is a tourist visa. Whether within or outside 90 days, it shouldn't be used to work, or else everyone will be doing this. Who wouldn't want to earn a few dollars then return to their country? 

 

And in your earlier 2021 post, seems your in-laws came on tourists visas, worked for a good while before leaving. Your post from yesterday read like they were only here for 90 days. 

 

Anyways, the ban is up. Proceed as directed by the embassy @SkolVikes

 

@Chancy I don't understand your post above. Kindly elaborate.

 

Thanks to @Ban Hammer for merging the posts. Now everything is clear.

The 10 year bar was giving for the over stay... When returning for interview in 2021 the new bar was for working within 90 days when entering on a tourist visa, which is  a perm. bar.

 

I can only hope this is good news. I mean why have us schedule an interview after a denial? Months after the fact.

[Timona 4,207]

I think a ban is applied overally, not in pieces. If it were to be applied in pieces, I'm sure a lot of people would have lifetime bans..

[SkolVikes 19]

1 minute ago, Timona said:

I think a ban is applied overally, not in pieces. If it were to be applied in pieces, I'm sure a lot of people would have lifetime bans..

So you're thinking since they didn't include the lifetime ban in the original ban at the interview over 10 years ago is the reasoning we are getting a new interview?

[Timona 4,207]

28 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

So you're thinking since they didn't include the lifetime ban in the original ban at the interview over 10 years ago is the reasoning we are getting a new interview?

 

No. I'm saying they only issue one ban, the greatest of all the laws you broke. I don't think bans are issued in pieces eg serve 10 years for X, then when X is up, 2 years for Y, then another 20 years for Z..I think its just "V years for misusing your visa."

 

I'm thinking in this sense: There are some bans that are lifetime. So, if you broke multiple laws of which lifetime is one of those, how are they going to sum them up? How are you going to issue lifetime ban for doing X, then 10 years for doing Y..Doesn't make sense and it's impossible. In this case, the greatest is lifetime. That's what you get. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Timona

[SkolVikes 19]

8 minutes ago, Timona said:

 

No. I'm saying they only issue one ban, the greatest of all the laws you broke. I don't think bans are issued in pieces eg serve 10 years for X, then when X is up, 2 years for Y, then another 20 years for Z..I think its just "V years for misusing your visa."

 

I'm thinking in this sense: There are some bans that are lifetime. So, if you broke multiple laws of which lifetime is one of those, how are they going to sum them up? How are you going to issue lifetime ban for doing X, then 10 years for doing Y..Doesn't make sense and it's impossible. In this case, the greatest is lifetime. That's what you get. 

Yah, that's not what happened in this case. Original ban was 10 years for the over stay when they interviewed around 2010/2011. I guess if what you are thinking was the case the first ban should have been a lifetime due to working with 90 days of entering on a tourist visa. (Fraud). They only did the whole proccess again because their 10 year ban was over and that's when they were faced with the lifetime in 2021...

[Timona 4,207]

On 9/9/2021 at 3:15 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)  

 

7 minutes ago, SkolVikes said:

Yah, that's not what happened in this case. Original ban was 10 years for the over stay when they interviewed around 2010/2011. I guess if what you are thinking was the case the first ban should have been a lifetime due to working with 90 days of entering on a tourist visa. (Fraud). They only did the whole proccess again because their 10 year ban was over and that's when they were faced with the lifetime in 2021...

 

1. For the bolded, which is which? I'm now confused. When did the ban end? Was it in 2021 or 2011?

 

2. I doubt if a lifetime bar will be lifted because someone was honest about illegal work. If that's that case, a lot of people with those bans will wish they go that route or anyone currently facing such will do the same and hope for similar result as yours. 

[SkolVikes 19]

11 minutes ago, Timona said:

 

 

1. For the bolded, which is which? I'm now confused. When did the ban end? Was it in 2021 or 2011?

 

2. I doubt if a lifetime bar will be lifted because someone was honest about illegal work. If that's that case, a lot of people with those bans will wish they go that route or anyone currently facing such will do the same and hope for similar result as yours. 

Originally petitioned in 2011 (around), Denied due to a 10 year bar.(over staying) Interviewed again in 2021 due to 10 year bar being over. Denied in 2021 due to 6C1 (212(a)(6)(C)(i). 

 

(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.  "

 

 

Like most applicants after the initial ban, expecting they were clear since the 10 years had elapsed my wife petitioned again...

[Chancy 6,241]

3 hours ago, Rocio0010 said:

Right, that's why I am confused as to why they have forgiven them and decided to take a step back.

 

No, the applicants were not forgiven by DOS based on the fact that this issue was even brought up in adjudicating their immigrant visa application many years after their unauthorized work in the US.  The pending question is whether the circumstances around the unauthorized work qualify as willful and material misrepresentation that would warrant a permanent bar for the visa applicants.  Although not forgiven, simple misrepresentation is not enough to bar someone from ever getting an immigrant visa.  To incur that heavy penalty, there has to be sufficient evidence (which could be circumstantial) that the misrepresentation was both "willful" and "material".  We will have to wait with the OP on how DOS will finally rule on that question.  If this were an AOS case being adjudicated by USCIS, the unauthorized work would probably not even be mentioned at the interview, if all USCIS has were circumstantial evidence.