New Petitioner Rules for

[amwo 0]

New Petitioner Rules for Family Based-I-130 Petition and "K" Cases

As part of a 2006 law know as the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act" (Adam Walsh Act), there are some U.S. citizen and permanent resident petitioners who will be ineligible to bring relatives to the United States. The ineligible petitioners are those who committed certain criminal offences against minors. This will impact the cases for which the following forms are filed: Form I-130 (Petition for Relative), Form I-129F (Petition for Fiancée), and Form I-600 (Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative). The petitioners must now be screened for compliance with the new law. Additionally, all such forms must be cleared through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) before the consulates can issue these visas. This later portion, included in a Department of State (DOS) cable released in late January 2007, impacts a limited group of I-130s, as consular posts are not permitted to accept or adjudicate any I-130 that was not filed and adjudicated by an appropriate USCIS office. Thus, all I-130 cases must go through the USCIS prior to action by the consulate.

Purpose and Scope

The Adam Walsh Act provisions are aimed at preventing certain child-predators from bringing relatives, fiancées, or adopted children to the U.S. Ineligible petitioners include those convicted of any of a variety of offenses against children, including non-parental kidnapping, non-parental false imprisonment, sexual solicitation, solicitation for prostitution, various child pornography offenses, criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, and any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor. ??There is a possible exception to this bar if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that the petitioner does not pose a risk to the beneficiary. Presumably, this would be appropriate in cases where the beneficiaries were adult relatives without children.

Impact at U.S. Consulates Worldwide

The immediate impact of this change is upon certain cases filed at consulates. Since the consulates cannot access information regarding the criminal histories of petitioners, they cannot perform the necessary screening. Thus, consular officers can take no action on unadjudicated I-130 petitions under any circumstances, whereas this was previously permitted in certain limited circumstances. Any I-130s petitions accepted by the consulate that were not adjudicated by the USCIS will be forwarded to the proper USCIS office for processing.

Uncertainty and Delays Likely

The DOS is obtaining from the USCIS clarification on petitions that were approved before the Adam Walsh Act went into effect, but for which the foreign national relative has not yet received the immigrant visa. Since this new law requires additional screening of petitioners, it is unclear whether it will cause further delays in the affected petitions. This is likely in some cases, however, given the history of security delays in immigration cases generally.

Copyright © 2007, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved

Edited February 2, 2007 by amwo

[YuAndDan 153]

This is not a bad thing.

This rule may have prevented this sad story from being written:

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18398

[Dean iWait 0]

Lots of VJ'ers who filed DCF affected by this. I don't think it's a bad law but this has effectively ended DCF.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=51238

[Robor007 0]

I still say a more simple solution is to just execute the pedophile. I'm not talking about a 20 year old that sleeps with a 16 year old. That might be considered a 'sex crime' but it's not pedophilia. I'm talking about an older person (usually male) taking advantage of a much younger minor. Those people should be killed. Period.

[YuAndDan 153]

I still say a more simple solution is to just execute the pedophile. I'm not talking about a 20 year old that sleeps with a 16 year old. That might be considered a 'sex crime' but it's not pedophilia. I'm talking about an older person (usually male) taking advantage of a much younger minor. Those people should be killed. Period.

Yes that would prevent them from filing a petition.

The story I quoted in the DUPLICATE POST. Is about a woman and her daughter coming to USA on a K-1/K-2 visas, the petitioner just wanted the daughter, and used the K-1/K-2 to get a child to abuse, he had served time for being a child molestor, and had to go outside the country for his sick pleasure.

A VERY GOOD READ: A scary but real story, Jany's story

Again people like that need to either be locked up for life, or just taken out.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Wow! Jany's story is remarkable and kudos for her for taking the actions she did. How sad that a good woman like this came across one of the sick men out there. Yes, the intent of the new bills are valid. I don't think we can find much argument there, but their implementation sucks and leaves a lot to be desired.

[amwo 0]

YuAndDan -

Apologies for the DUPLICATE POST but I put it in both because not all K-1's go into the K-3 forum and vice versa.

Oh, and sorry for this dupe too!

o.O

~

I still say a more simple solution is to just execute the pedophile. I'm not talking about a 20 year old that sleeps with a 16 year old. That might be considered a 'sex crime' but it's not pedophilia. I'm talking about an older person (usually male) taking advantage of a much younger minor. Those people should be killed. Period.

Yes that would prevent them from filing a petition.

The story I quoted in the DUPLICATE POST. Is about a woman and her daughter coming to USA on a K-1/K-2 visas, the petitioner just wanted the daughter, and used the K-1/K-2 to get a child to abuse, he had served time for being a child molestor, and had to go outside the country for his sick pleasure.

A VERY GOOD READ: A scary but real story, Jany's story

Again people like that need to either be locked up for life, or just taken out.

Edited February 3, 2007 by amwo