Help from a Senator with a CIMT?

[advocator 0]

Hello everyone,

I recently learned that my fiance's visa will most likely be denied due to a crime involving moral turpitude from 17 years ago. Short version - he had 2 cars and used the tax disc from one car that wasn't working on the other car that did work. Has anyone had any luck with a Senator's intervention in getting a visa approved? I know its a long shot, but we have to try everything we can think of at this point. A waiver will be hard to get approved, not to mention another 8-10 months waiting for a decision... I'm heartbroken and desperate.

[Nich-Nick 3,354]

Hello everyone,

I recently learned that my fiance's visa will most likely be denied due to a crime involving moral turpitude from 17 years ago. Short version - he had 2 cars and used the tax disc from one car that wasn't working on the other car that did work. Has anyone had any luck with a Senator's intervention in getting a visa approved? I know its a long shot, but we have to try everything we can think of at this point. A waiver will be hard to get approved, not to mention another 8-10 months waiting for a decision... I'm heartbroken and desperate.

I never had a congressman intervene so don't have an answer. But I would get the appropriate court records and have a go at the interview to see what the officer says. It's not a huge crime, long ago, and moral turpitude isn't precisely defined. I believe the interviewing office has the descretion to determine if he will grant the visa based on the situation. And he will be face to face to talk it out and find out if he can do something to get a visa if it isn't approved.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Nich-Nick

[advocator 0]

Thanks for the encouragement Nich-Nick! Our lawyer thinks a Senator may just delay things at this point and not be of any real help. He says Senatorial intervention may be of definite help at the waiver level. Its just so frustrating because the charge was "fraudulent use of a tax disc" which sounds awful and that word "fraud" is like a death sentence to visas. That same charge is used for people who steal tax discs and counterfeit them as well. Graeme did a stupid thing when he was 24 years old, but it was a tax disc he paid for. It wasn't stolen or counterfeit. And his only punishment was a 35 pound fine! That's my best defense for him, but I don't know if it will be enough...

I guess we'll find out on July 5. Thanks so much for the advice!

[Nich-Nick 3,354]

Thanks for the encouragement Nich-Nick! Our lawyer thinks a Senator may just delay things at this point and not be of any real help. He says Senatorial intervention may be of definite help at the waiver level. Its just so frustrating because the charge was "fraudulent use of a tax disc" which sounds awful and that word "fraud" is like a death sentence to visas. That same charge is used for people who steal tax discs and counterfeit them as well. Graeme did a stupid thing when he was 24 years old, but it was a tax disc he paid for. It wasn't stolen or counterfeit. And his only punishment was a 35 pound fine! That's my best defense for him, but I don't know if it will be enough...

I guess we'll find out on July 5. Thanks so much for the advice!

His advantage is that the guy making the decision meets him and talks with him and sees he's a responsible 40 year old now. It's not based on just the scary words on paper.

[advocator 0]

I like that way of thinking.

By the way, congratulations on being a permanent resident!!!

[Sergi9 110]

Thanks for the encouragement Nich-Nick! Our lawyer thinks a Senator may just delay things at this point and not be of any real help. He says Senatorial intervention may be of definite help at the waiver level. Its just so frustrating because the charge was "fraudulent use of a tax disc" which sounds awful and that word "fraud" is like a death sentence to visas. That same charge is used for people who steal tax discs and counterfeit them as well. Graeme did a stupid thing when he was 24 years old, but it was a tax disc he paid for. It wasn't stolen or counterfeit. And his only punishment was a 35 pound fine! That's my best defense for him, but I don't know if it will be enough...

I guess we'll find out on July 5. Thanks so much for the advice!

A Consular decision legally is non-reviewable. In other words your Senator does not outrank your Consular in the world of VISA issuance. The Consular decides by what the law tells him/her can be done. If a waiver is needed it will be required, plan on that reality and prepare accordingly.

Steve Heller is a solicitor in UK, he worked at the US Embassy London in the USCIS section as an adjudicator. He can evaluate the "crime" and tell you if a waiver will be required and help you prepare one that can endure USCIS scrutiny. He is far less expensive than a stateside attorney and is probably the best credentialed of any US Immigration lawyer with respect to US Embassy London.

I look at this as a simple proposition, pay now or pay later. If you prepare and have the case laid out by an attorney you might not get held up for months waiting for an "advisory opinion" from USCIS in one of the busiest consulates in the World, if no waiver is needed. If a waiver is required then you will have it handy to submit and reduce waiting time on that front as well.

IMHO the "key" to this mystery lies in how the UK law matches up with the US Law in determining if it is a CIMT and if its not, articulating that to the consular officer who does the interview. If there is doubt at the interview, respectfully request a supervisor to look it over so your paperwork doesn't get shelved for a couple months. If they allow attorney at interview, take Heller with you. He might still be a familiar face at the Embassy.

Good luck

Edited June 14, 2011 by Sergi9

[advocator 0]

A Consular decision legally is non-reviewable. In other words your Senator does not outrank your Consular in the world of VISA issuance. The Consular decides by what the law tells him/her can be done. If a waiver is needed it will be required, plan on that reality and prepare accordingly.

Steve Heller is a solicitor in UK, he worked at the US Embassy London in the USCIS section as an adjudicator. He can evaluate the "crime" and tell you if a waiver will be required and help you prepare one that can endure USCIS scrutiny. He is far less expensive than a stateside attorney and is probably the best credentialed of any US Immigration lawyer with respect to US Embassy London.

I look at this as a simple proposition, pay now or pay later. If you prepare and have the case laid out by an attorney you might not get held up for months waiting for an "advisory opinion" from USCIS in one of the busiest consulates in the World, if no waiver is needed. If a waiver is required then you will have it handy to submit and reduce waiting time on that front as well.

IMHO the "key" to this mystery lies in how the UK law matches up with the US Law in determining if it is a CIMT and if its not, articulating that to the consular officer who does the interview. If there is doubt at the interview, respectfully request a supervisor to look it over so your paperwork doesn't get shelved for a couple months. If they allow attorney at interview, take Heller with you. He might still be a familiar face at the Embassy.

Good luck

Thank you for the advice. We hired Steven over a month ago. Since posting this topic, I have spoken with him about the subject of senators. He says a Senator won't hurt us at this stage, but it may delay the interview due to the bureaucracy involved. However, a senator may be of some assistance at the waiver stage if for no other reason but to keep things moving and to make sure no delays are added on to an already lengthy process. Unfortunately, Steven feels we will be denied. We have already started working on the waiver and I hope to be able to file as soon as a denial is given. But a small part of me still has hope that the consular officer will be on our side and interpret the law accordingly.