Rete

Right, those are the USCIS offices in foreign countries. The person I questioned said they were US Consulates. It appears from further posts from him that he was not aware of the difference between US Consulate and USCIS offices.

Thanks.

Jimmy

I used DCF in London in order to get a visa for my wife. Our interview is scheduled for next wednesday. my lawyer just called, saying our interview might be cancelled because of the adam walsh act. another client of his in paris had his interview cancelled.

I wonder whether mine might not be cancelled because it is only a few days away. Any chance? Any idea?

My understanding is that the I-130 application is likely to have already been approved. If that is so, will the embassy still be able to conduct the interview and issue the visa next wednesday.

if not, any guesses as to the process, and possible timing?

help please.

meauxna

No one knows yet, James, including the people handling the petitions overseas.

Reports are that the petitions that were approved by a Consular Officer must be readjudicated by USCIS personnel. They will be returned to a USCIS office, but the Consular staff do not yet know if that will be their Field Office or an office in the US.

Some people who already had visa interview scheduled from a Consular-approved petition have been told that their next communication will be from the NVC.

Typically, there is no process in place ahead of time, and staffers around the world are learning on the fly.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I've posted Condi Rice's cable on the matter.

snowbunny

Call me sceptical but I believe this is being done to further slow the process of immigration to the US and to prevent some spouses who would be VAWA candidates if they were allowed into the US, whether or not they were aware of their spouse's past history.

This will entail further expense and time, the former of which will likely be passed on to the petitioner. If the US government were truly beneficent, why not offer the same information to people marrying within the US or to agencies handling adoptions/foster care in the US (potential adoptive or foster parents do not get the federal level of screening)? The vast majority of crime that could be prevented like this will occur among families comprised of all US citizen and resident families.

Meanwhile, the already horrid immigration process has been thrown into further disarray. And people wonder why many choose to enter illegally.

Just when I thought it was impossible to dislike the Bush administration any more than I already do, they manage to do something to achieve that very effect.

HunterGreen

Snow, I'm not going to call you sceptical, but I am going to call you paranoid (in a very loving manner). Listen, not everything the government does or does not is aimed at immigrants and immigration. There are other reasons, sometimes.

The Adam Walsh Act is a good act. On the immigration side of it, it prevents women and children falling into the hands of American predators who will exploit and abuse them. Any one child protected from abuse is worth it. But this is not what the Act was called to life for, it does so much more. Did you read the text of the bill, through the link I provided earlier?

The trouble that is being caused now, immigration wise - or I should say, DCF wise- is only because the consulates do not have access to the appropriate databases to do the needed background checks on the USC. One could say that the DHS should have been prepared for this, but I have no idea if it is possible to be prepared for the ramifications of a law that at first and second glance had nothing to do with immigration.

Maybe the consulates will get access to those databases later on. Maybe they are going to process the paperwork through the field offices and do interviews at the consulates after all comes back clear. Right now, nobody is certain what will happen.

But the Adam Walsh Act is a good act, and I feel it's sad that some people will now think of this little boy who was beheaded by his abductor as 'the one that screwed up their DCF' (not going to link to it but this is, paraphrased, what I read someone saying).
We will finally have a national sex offender registry, instead of the statewide ones there are now - which lose sex offenders all the time because they are only supposed to register in the state where they were convicted.
There will be federal checks on prospective adoptive and foster parents, too (see sec. 152), as will people working at schools (Schools Safe Act). The minimum sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of children will be at least 30 years. And so on and so on.......

It isn't an anti-immigration act.

Elaine

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Do not ever underestimate the power of the law of unintended consequences.

HunterGreen

I am actually going to disagree with myself here.... I do think they dropped the ball on this. Whether it was DHS or USCIS , not doing anything for almost 6 months and then suddenly cutting it off without warning (without warning to the consular staff, even) - it seems that somewhere a quarter dropped a bit late.

Elaine

meauxna

Holy Crow.
I've been very surprised and disappointed by some of the comments I've read, but that one takes the cake.

This doesn't make anyone worse off than anyone else. They just have to get in the same line as everyone else now.

sheesh.

snowbunny

From:

http://www.ilrc.org/poison_pills.php

(The new legislation will) impose immigration penalties on US citizens and cause enormous delays in family backlog reduction. Much of this ill-conceived provision became law in the recently enacted Adam Walsh Act. This provision would limit the rights of U.S. citizens to petition for their immediate relatives, including spouses or minor children, if they are convicted of certain aggravated felonies. Congress characterizes these aggravated felonies as “serious sexual offenses,” but in reality this provision includes misdemeanors with no jail sentence, including consensual sex between common law spouses or teenage girlfriends and boyfriends. The latter is included in the Adam Walsh provision. Although this provision was supposed to protect women and children, major national groups working against domestic violence against immigrants oppose it because it will, in many cases, hurt rather than harm families.

Example : Mark, a U.S. citizen, was 18 when he was convicted of misdemeanor statutory rape for having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, Therese, who is undocumented. He was sentenced to probation but no jail. Mark and Therese later married and decided to have a child. Now Mark has applied for a green card for Therese, based on her status as the wife of a U.S. citizen. However, Mark’s misdemeanor conviction will bar him from being able to petition for Therese. If immigration authorities find Therese, she can be deported away from her husband and child.

Furthermore, enforcing the provision in S. 2611, like the Adam Walsh Act, will require a criminal background check on all U.S. citizens who seek to bring their close family members to the United States. These checks already take years for the FBI to complete for immigration authorities; the requirement to check all U.S. citizen petitioners as well as immigrant relatives will vastly increase the demand on scarce law enforcement resources, delay family visa processing, and break up families without the prospect for reunification."

If a USC petitioner has been convicted of intoxication manslaughter, are they barred from petitioning for a relative?

Charise

My husband had his interview scheduled for Wednesday (2 days ago) and the law went into effect the day before, so the Madrid Consulate was no longer able to issue his visa or even interview him, without first sending the application to the USCIS in Rome first. I've called Rome and they don't know how long the process will take, because they have not yet received any further instructions on how to implement the new law. They told me that they will know more in a week or two. It's very upsetting: we were hoping that he would be able to come to the US by the end of March. .

ian-mstm

Yes, but that's because she's undocumented... not because her husband had a conviction! By throwing together these two unrelated items, the casual observer might think that she is barred from adjusting because of her husband's behavior - but that's not the case here.

Ian

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The immigration provisions of the Adam Walsh Act appears to provide for a waiver. However, Therese needs an approved I-130 to immigrate. She is married to Mark, but he can't get an I-130 approved. These two items are not "unrelated."

snowbunny

The hypothetical case is not clear-cut, but if statutory rape is a sex crime against a minor, and it seems that it is, then he cannot file (and have approved) an I-130 for ANYONE. Is this not the case?

There are two aspects here: the end of DCF, which will cause major hassles for those to whom it would otherwise have been available; and grounds to deny I-130 petitions based upon the USC's criminal record. Correct me if I'm wrong: a conviction for drug trafficking or manslaughter would not make the petitioner ineligible, but indecent exposure involving a minor would. No?

ian-mstm

Okay... I'll bite. I was under the impression that an undocumented alien could not adjust status even if married to a USC.

Ian