Clare & Steven

Hi everyone,
With much sadness I must report our experience at Montreal yesterday. Steven & I arrived at 9:15am for our 10am appt. We waited about 20 minutes on line, went thru the security check and up to the window to pay the $100. We sat for a few minutes and were called up to window #5 to hand over the required documents...the list was very short, no supporting documents to my affidavit of support were asked for (bank/employee letter, etc.) The woman at the counter was very personable and patient.
We sat back down and our number was called to interview room #12. As soon as we walked in, the interviewer greeted us and slid Steven's passport under the glass to him. Right there, I knew there was trouble. He told him that because he had committed a crime of moral turpitude, he could not grant his visa that day. I almost fell on the floor! Poor Steven just started sobbing...we were so shocked to get this far and then to get slammed back to the ground.
After doing some reading...a little late for that, I know....I found some threads on the I-601 Waiver. It was suggested to us by the interviewer to fill one out and attach my letter of hardship. Of course, it's another $195 for this, with no guarantee of acceptance. (what else is new?) I have the paperwork here and will Fed-Ex it to him with my letter ASAP so he can forward it to the consulate.
There IS some good news to all of this, believe it or not. The woman at window #5 spoke to Steven after we were denied and told him that she feels this should be simple and sees no problems in him getting the waiver. She also told him that she is our case manager and to call her if we hit any snags. She is going to expedite our application as soon as she receives it. She thinks it should take about 2 weeks from the time she receives it because he holds an I-94 waiver for visiting and extensive security checks on him were already done.
Of course, once again, there are no guarantees to any of this and I still must submit a letter of hardship. Now most of the threads I've seen on this were wives or husbands claiming hardship for their spouse, not a fiance. I cannot move to Canada with my two children from my first marriage because we have joint custody. I cannot quit my job of 10 years and start over at my age either. What would stop the US from saying...oh well, find someone else and get on with your life? I've seen these things get denied for married couples, so I have some concerns because we're just engaged.
For the record, the crime of moral turpitude happened a little over 6 years ago. He was convicted of dangerous driving of a stolen vehicle. So there are 2 separate counts that stem from the same incident. Fortunately, he has no extensive crimminal history and this is the only time he's ever been arrested.
Sorry to ramble on like this...I'm just so upset that I didn't look any further into this before we went on the interview. I should have done more research...

Steffi

Oh wow, I'm really sorry to hear that you got denied. That must be so devastating! I don't know what I would have done if they had turned me down. I hope you can get things sorted out with that I-601 wavver and that everything will work out a-ok in the end. Best of luck to you guys!

Clare & Steven

Oh, he served 4 months for this incident. I was reading some legal paper that said if the person served less than 6 months..and commited ONE crime then they can deny the visa on Moral Turpitude....but there were two counts, so I guess this doesn't apply anyway. rats!

Alecca

I'm so sorry guys! Good luck with your appeal.

Folinskyinla

I recommend you get a lawyer experienced in waiver work. It is not just the hardship to you. You have to balance EVERYTHING. For example, what was the crime? Was there more than one crime? Or was it a crime that had a maxium sentence of a year or more? Or was he sentenced to confinement for more than six months? WHEN was the crime? That is has to be factored in. The lesser the offense, then the greater the hardship to you. This is a subtle point often missed by applicants and sadly, by BCIS officers unless it is explained to them.

I wonder why you didn't know about this going in?

lpdiver

Interesting...is the hardship greater because if the crime is smaller a correct statement. I don't understand myself. Is it an inverse porportional relationship...I.e. her hardship is infact the same but divided by the lesser offence, therefore greater?

Clare & Steven

Hi, thanks for your response. I did know about his crime, but I never knew or even read about "moral turpitude". I didn't know there was a chance of him needing further waivers because he already had the I94. I thought that since he was allowed to come here after all of the security checks, then it would apply to the K-1 as well. It was explained to me at the interview that the I94 waiver is for a non-immigrant and the I-601 waiver is for an immigrant.
I also don't understand what you mean about the "lesser the offense, then the greater the hardship" to me. Can you explain that a bit further?

Rete

Clare and Steven

My condolences on the outcome of today's interview in Montreal. I had no idea that Steven had a criminal history that might prove detrimental to your quest for a K-1.

I know it is often a financial hardship for single parents to find the financial means to obtain legal services and particularly those of a specialized attorney. However, it behooves you to follow Mr. Folinskyinla's advice and retain the services of an experienced immigration attorney who deals with these waivers on a regular basis. Many people have done this on their own as I've seen here on the NG. However, Steven has not one but two convictions. What helps is short sentence he received and the fact that it was 6 years ago. You do need, however, specialized advice that no one other than an attorney is qualified to give you.

I'm pulling for you.

Rete

Folinskyinla

Hi:

"Extreme hardship" is not a term floating out there in space which be readily defined.

The degree of hardship to be "extreme" would be higher if he was guilty of three rapes five years ago as opposed to two petty theft shoplifting offenses of chewing gum 20 years ago.

There are two venerable cases in the 212(h) area and BCIS tends to note the first one of the kid who had commited multiple burglaries in the recent past and had shown little or no remorse -- on the hardship to the parents, no where near enough. A following case, citing the first, was an example where a waiver was granted. [Quite often the precedent decisions are "no" with no countervailing "yes" cases to define the parameters]. The second case involved a former prostitute who had reformed herself and her US husband had lived with her on the US border in Mexico for some years. Hubby wanted to return to his home town in the North East. INS -- DD opined that life on Mexico US border was mighty fine and besides cost of living was lower. Commissioner found that given age of the offenses, the time spent in exile, the complete reform, it could not be disputed that hardship was shown.

CharlieS

Commissioner found that given age of the offenses, the time spent in exile, the complete reform, it could not be disputed that hardship was shown. [/QUOTE]




Interesting point. It never occured to me that you could actually use the offence to work in your favor if its old enough and reform has been shown.
I'm making notes for my own I601 waiver so thanks for this subtle pointer Mr. F

Folinskyinla

Interesting point. It never occured to me that you could actually use the offence to work in your favor if its old enough and reform has been shown.
I'm making notes for my own I601 waiver so thanks for this subtle pointer Mr. F [/QUOTE]

Hi:

Make all the notes you want -- however, almost ALL of the case law is on situations where the ultimate result was NO. And the people who adjudicate these cases are NOT lawyers. So they unthinkingly cite all the "Nay" cases not realizing for example that courts in reviewing cases have limited powers and must give deference -- even though the judge may disagree with an administrative deciscion, she will be required to uphold unless it is totally off the wall. The trick is to marshall their OWN cases to show why your case can and should be approved.

The language is there in the cases if you know how to look for it and then use it -- and that is PRECISELY what lawyers are trained to do. This is NOT filling out forms or going "golly gee, I'm in love and it ain't fair to keep us apart."

doctor scrumpy

Hi there,

For what it is worth, Iwe filed EVERY single reason we could think of why Mary Ann could not be reasonably expected to trael to the UK. Everything from her Mom who is 82 & relies upon MA to get her to the shops, docs & take care of other matters through work, house shipping etc to the fact that her pooch would be in quarantine for 6 months in the UK.

The main trouble that I can see with your case is the fact that the CIMTs were committed only 6 years ago. The longer they are in your past the better. I had CIMTs & the view was that they were all in the ' when I was 20 ' category. They judged me as a man of 40 not a youth of 20 (fortunately)

All the best with your application

Doc

Andy Platt

"doctor scrumpy" <member@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > shipping etc to the fact that her pooch would be in quarantine for 6
    > months in the UK.

Kind of O/T but I believe that there's now a program that will allow that to
be skipped if you have the documentation to show they have had rabies (and
probably other) shots.

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.

BritishInOhio

Is it just me or am I the only person who is a little concerned with the fact that you are trying to get this man into the US. He is a convicted criminal, why should he be allowed in to the US, we have enough criminals here as it is without shipping more in. I'm sorry to be harsh but I don't think he should be allowed to come here.

Sorry.

Rich

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Please read what I've posted. We are concerned. However, Congress has allowed a waiver for some crimes in the discretion of the BCIS. There can be rehabilitation.

I am currently mentoring a young attorney whose client was convicted of lewd conduct when he was 18 in 19-eighty-4 in a two count indictment. He was sentenced to 90 days. He has had no criminal record since then. However, he is a registered sex offender.

In 19-eighty-8, after marriage to a US citizen, the I-130 was duly approved, and since he had previsously entered without inspection, he had to consular process [no 3/10 year bars back then].

He revealed the conviction to the consular officer. They expressly applied the "petty offense" exception as then written.

Visa was issued.

He then crossed over via a port of entry and INS inspected him and determined that the conviction did not bar him from admission.

He has since lived peacably, has had two children, a mortgage and is the sole support of his family.

Well, in "Operation Predator", BICE has determined that DOS and INS made a mistake 15 years ago, made a 5:30 am raid on his house and arrested him in front of his children. He is now in removal proceedings and in custody.

The Immigration Judge determined that based upon his last 15 years of exemplary conduct that he is no threat to the community, and as a home owner and worker, unlikely to abscond.and set a bond for his release.

Would you believe that, as a matter of POLICY from John Ashcroft, the bond determination was appealed so as to prevent his release.

Yes, the man was convicted -- but he served his 90 days 19 years ago, was given a green card by not one, but two careful reviews of his record and NOW the US needs "protection" from people like him? The case bothers me a lot.