Does the law applies in a Waiver Ineligibility ? (merged)

[Boiler 45,445]

In this case the only perspective that matters is the Consulate and they require a waiver.

[Mike E 11,739]

30 minutes ago, SunnyDelightNaija said:

The two were denied under section 214(B, which means based on the known fact as at the time of the interview, I was not qualified to be issued a Non Immigrant visa

Then if your legal theory is correct, the fake identity was not a material misrep. You can hire a lawyer to test that idea, and/or try calling into ####### Hacking’s youtube show. 

[SunnyDelightNaija 1]

13 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Then if your legal theory is correct, the fake identity was not a material misrep. You can hire a lawyer to test that idea, and/or try calling into ####### Hacking’s youtube show. 

Thanks a lot.

 

Please do you have an idea how I can join the YouTube Show. I am from Nigeria.

 

Do you have idea of time and the link to get me there? And number to call.

 

I will appreciate as I am so convinced that it was a misrepresentation but never material.

 

In the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), it was stated that:

"(i)     (U) The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that misrepresentations of residence and identity are not automatically material and must be considered as any other misrepresentation.  That means they can be material for purposes of 212(a)(6)(C)(i) if the individual is ineligible on the true facts, or the misrepresentation tends to cut off a relevant line of inquiry which might have led to a proper finding of ineligibility.  (For example, an applicant who is an imposter to a visa, or other document presented to seek admission to the United States or other immigration benefit, would be ineligible under 212(a)(6)(C)(i))."

 

With this, my true fact as at 2002, does not make me ineligible at any point in time from then till date. It was the same true fact I presented at the embassy for my K1 visa in 2023 and my visa was approved. It was 3 days letter I was sent letter to clarify, and later the waiver..

 

If my true fact was actually concealing some facts about my ineligibility, I would not have changed to it again in 2002.

 

If the consular believes that misrepresentation was material, the law expects the consular to tie it to a ground of ineligibility I was trying to conceal. There was absolutely nothing. I changed it because the visa agent told me that if the consular knew I had been refused in 2001, I would never be issued the visa.  I bought into it, and refusing to conceal previous visa refusal does not make anyone ineligible even if the consular determines that was what I was attempting to cover.

 

In the US law, you can misrepresent (I am not encouraging it though, it is the US law), but it should not be MATERIAL, and there are ways that materiality must be tested by the consular as stated in FAM. It is what it is though.

 

I will try and call the show. Please kindly give me a direction on it.

 

Thanks

Edited July 17, 2023 by SunnyDelightNaija

[Boiler 45,445]

4pm his time zone today so 2 1/2 hours

 

You can find him on You Tube

[Crazy Cat 41,811]

32 minutes ago, Boiler said:

4pm his time zone today so 2 1/2 hours

 

You can find him on You Tube

I'll be tuning in today.....

Edited July 17, 2023 by Crazy Cat

[Crazy Cat 41,811]

Interestingly, Hacking has a video along the lines of this subject....similar.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Crazy Cat

[Crazy Cat 41,811]

50 minutes ago, Teedee428 said:

Judging and accusing the OP of lying is not the way to go.

The OP admitted willful misrepresentation in an attempt to gain a visa.  

[Teedee428 11]

7 minutes ago, Crazy Cat said:

The OP admitted willful misrepresentation in an attempt to gain a visa.  

The OP was accused of “still not telling the truth in 2023”. That’s what I was referring to. 

[Redro 4,611]

52 minutes ago, Teedee428 said:

The OP was accused of “still not telling the truth in 2023”. That’s what I was referring to. 

 

On 7/16/2023 at 10:55 AM, Boiler said:

Do they not ask for your aliases?

 

On 7/16/2023 at 10:56 AM, SunnyDelightNaija said:

Nope. They did not

 

OP did not write down their alias from 2002. 

Was it a lie of omission or did they truly forget? 

 

@SunnyDelightNaija- your USC partner needs to get on board with this fighting this denial and request for waiver. 

One of our members (I'll find the post later today) was offered  the chance to file a waiver (but they didn't have a qualifying relative)  as their in-laws had worked without authorization. 

The poster competently argued (without a lawyer) working without authorization was forgiven for immediate relatives. It was a long process but it was manageable. 

You will either have to engage the services of a lawyer or have your partner on board to fight this. 

The Nigerian embassy can be very unforgiving. But, sincere cases that can be approved should eventually be approved. 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Redro

[Boiler 45,445]

I watched Hacking but did not see Sunny.

[Ontarkie 14,217]

~~Thread is locked to further replies. The OP needs the help of an attorney VJ can only offer so much help. This thread is not to be restarted or referred back to.~~