Alvena Ferreira

sandi wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
SEE THIS PAGE to answer some of your questions regarding foia request:
http://foia.state.gov/faqs.asp Alvena
-----------------------
Doc Steen Site: http://www.mindspring.com/~docsteen/...o/visainfo.htm
=========================================
I am not a lawyer and this is not immigration advice. This is my personal opinion,
posted for the purpose of discussion only. Locate an immigration attorney in your
area at: http://www.aila.org
=========================================

Alvena Ferreira

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
Andrew, you may have something there. If Sandi can get the FOIA records from the
State Department, they *might* not show any fraud. In which case, Patrick could just
take those to the consulate and let them chew on it. Who knows? It might be worth
going that route.

Alvena
-----------------------
Doc Steen Site: http://www.mindspring.com/~docsteen/...o/visainfo.htm
=========================================
I am not a lawyer and this is not immigration advice. This is my personal opinion,
posted for the purpose of discussion only. Locate an immigration attorney in your
area at: http://www.aila.org
=========================================

Alvena Ferreira

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Unfortunately, the decision by the officer at the port of entry canNOT be
appealed if he was accused of fraud or misrepresentation, I don't think. (I could
be wrong) Alvena
-----------------------
Doc Steen Site: http://www.mindspring.com/~docsteen/...o/visainfo.htm
=========================================
I am not a lawyer and this is not immigration advice. This is my personal opinion,
posted for the purpose of discussion only. Locate an immigration attorney in your
area at: http://www.aila.org
=========================================

tara

Sandi, you did not mention the numbered reason given for requiring the waiver........was it 212? Was the "charge" fraud? Did he not mention the POE "event"? Was it "willful"?

9 FAM 40.63 Notes
In applying the provisions of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), consular officers should keep in mind the severe nature of the penalty the alien incurs: life-time exclusion, unless a waiver is obtainable. [See 9 FAM 40.63 N9 .]

When imposing such a dire penalty, the consular officer should keep in mind the words quoted by the Attorney General in his landmark opinion on this matter. (The Matter of S- and B-C, 9 I&N Dec. 436, at 447.)in and out of the United States."

9 FAM 40.63 N2 Criteria for Finding of Ineligibility
In order to find an alien ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), it must be
determined that:
(1) There has been a misrepresentation made by the applicant
[see 9 FAM 40.63 N4 ];
(2) The misrepresentation was willfully made [see 9 FAM 40.63 N5 ];
and
(3) The fact misrepresented is material [see 9 FAM 40.63 N6 ], or
(4) The alien uses fraud [see 9 FAM 40.63 N3 ] to procure a visa orother documentation [see 9 FAM 40.63 N7 ], to receive a benefit under the INA [see 9 FAM 40.63 N7 ].
9 FAM 40.63 N3 Different Standards for Findings of
"Fraud" or "Willfully Misrepresenting a Material Fact"
(TL:VISA-147; 07-9-1996)
a. The fact that Congress used the terms "fraud"and "willfully mis-representing a material fact" in the alternative indicates an intent to set a
lower standard than is required in making a finding of what is known in thelaw as fraud. The distinction between the two terms is not readily apparent.
For the purposes of this section, the Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a finding of "fraud" requires a determination that the alien made a false representation of a material fact with knowledge of its falsity

Michael Voight

I got this part of the story.

1. He had a crew visa.. Which permits being in the country for meeting his ship.
2. His plane was 6 hours late.
3. He was detained.

Where was he detained? At the airport, at the dock or somewhere else. If Air Ghana
was "notorious" for late flights, and a 6 hour delay caused him to miss the ship, how
much time would he have had without the delay?? After all, you generally have to
report on board a ship well before it leaves. How was he sent back?

None of this was mentioned before when you were asking about other things in this
group. Did you just now find out about it?

Michael

Andrew Defaria

--------------000303080103060504070707

Alvena Ferreira wrote:

    >
    >
[usenetquote2]>> Also I would think that there would be a little more information in the denial[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> statement, something that would hopefully more clearly state the reason for denial[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> and that you have the chance to appeal it, no? I know there is the possibility to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> apply for a waiver (which are very difficult to get mind you), but can you not[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> also appeal the decision providing evidience that the INS official at the POE[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> errored in his judgement that fraud occured. In fact I have seen appeals about[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> such things.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >

Then perhaps I am lucky because my petition was not denied by the consulate rather
returned for "administrative review". I too have heard that there is no appeal of
consulate decision which quite honestly I think sucks. How can the law allow such
legal and life altering decisions go unchallenged?

There is an interesting article regarding fraud here:
http://www.aila.org/newsroom/39ad9009.html.

First of all do not let popular opinion tell you that fraud is rampant:

INS data show that of the 300 million foreign nationals inspected for admission
last year, 76,113 of them were removed under the so-called "expedited removal"
process due to "fraud or misrepresentation." This represents only one-quarter of
one percent of the total number of visitors to the United States.

Secondly such decisions should not be entered into lightly nor should they be done by
non professionals:

Given the complexity just to determine what fraud is, and the significant
consequences to an applicant of such a determination, it is imperative that a
judgement not be entered lightly, or without significant due process protections.
Some of these protections are missing from our current immigration system,
especially when fraud determinations can be made by low-level officers. Further,
as noted earlier, in most cases these determinations are not reviewable or
appealable, even to an administrative law judge.

In the past, cases relating to fraud or misrepresentation were referred to
Immigration Judges to weigh the factors and make a determination. However, since
the 1996 Immigration Reform Act, the authority to make determinations of fraud
has been delegated to immigration inspectors at the ports of entry under the
so-called "expedited removal" process. Similarly, at the consular posts, consular
officers are required to make significant decisions about an applicant's
credibility in the course of a few minutes of discussion.

However, under current immigration law, there often is no recourse for appeal or
review of these serious decisions. At consular posts, the Advisory Opinions
office of the State Department will only overrule a consular officer's decision
if it represents an erroneous conclusion of law. However, the AO will not
overrule a decision based on the facts of a particular situation (which involves
most determinations of "subjective" fraud). Consular decisions are largely
non-reviewable by any court. (However, Representative Barney Frank for several
years has proposed legislation to create an appeals board for consular
decisions.)

With regard to INS fraud determinations, denial of certain petitions are
appealable to the Administrative Appeals Office of the INS, and subsequently to a
federal district court, although often the information on which the INS denies
the petition is not made available to the petitioner to rebut during an appeal.
Denials of admission to the United States under expedited removal are
specifically exempt from any type of administrative or judicial review of the
determinations by immigration inspectors. The only review allowable is by an
immediate supervisor, who often reviews only the record prepared by the
inspector. Thus, individuals who find themselves banished for five years under
expedited removal procedures for erroneous applications of the law have no real
way to appeal or reopen their case.

This situation flies in the face of our judicial tradition of due process, and,
to many--both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens, can smack of arbitrary
decision-making. Allowing for review of these cases before a judge, with an
opportunity to present countervailing evidence, would do much to add credence to
the system.

So with Sandi's case, being denied by the consulate, she probably cannot appeal
(although it said "largely not reviewable" leaving one with at least a little hope
that one isn't in the "largely" category) but in my case, not denied by the
consulate yet rather under administrative review at the INS, if denied by the INS I
believe I still have the right to appeal (though I may never find out exactly what
it is I'm appealing because I may never be afforded the opportunity to see the
evidence against me).

--------------000303080103060504070707

<html> <head> </head> <body> Alvena Ferreira wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]">Andrew DeFaria wrote:<br> <blockquote
type="cite">Also I would think that there would be a little more information in the
denial statement, something that would hopefully more clearly state the reason for
denial and that you have the chance to appeal it, no? I know there is the possibility
to apply for a waiver (which are very difficult to get mind you), but can you not
also appeal the decision providing evidience that the INS official at the POE errored
in his judgement that fraud occured. In fact I have seen appeals about such
things.<br> </blockquote> <!---->Unfortunately, the decision by the officer at the
port of entry can NOT be appealed if he was accused of fraud or misrepresentation, I
don't think. (I could be wrong)</blockquote> Then perhaps I am lucky because my
petition was not denied by the consulate rather returned for "administrative review".
I too have heard that there is no appeal of consulate decision which quite honestly I
think sucks. How can the law allow such legal and life altering decisions go
unchallenged?<br> <br> There is an interesting article regarding fraud here: <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.aila.org/newsroom/39ad9009.html">http-
    >
opinion tell you that fraud is rampant:<br> <blockquote>INS data show that of the 300
million foreign nationals inspected for admission last year, 76,113 of them were
removed under the so-called "expedited removal" process due to "fraud or
misrepresentation." This represents only one-quarter of one percent of the total
number of visitors to the United States.<br> </blockquote> Secondly such decisions
should not be entered into lightly nor should they be done by non professionals:<br>
<blockquote>
<p>Given the complexity just to determine what fraud is, and the significant
consequences to an applicant of such a determination, it is imperative
that a judgement not be entered lightly, or without significant due
process protections. Some of these protections are missing from our
current immigration system, especially when fraud determinations can be
made by low-level officers. Further, as noted earlier, in most cases these
determinations are not reviewable or appealable, even to an administrative
law judge.</p>
<q>In the past, cases relating to fraud or misrepresentation were referred to
Immigration Judges to weigh the factors and make a determination. However,
since the 1996 Immigration Reform Act, the authority to make
determinations of fraud has been delegated to immigration inspectors at
the ports of entry under the so-called "expedited removal" process.
Similarly, at the consular posts, consular officers are required to make
significant decisions about an applicant’s credibility in the course
of a few minutes of discussion. </p>
<r>However, under current immigration law, there often is no recourse for
appeal or review of these serious decisions. At consular posts, the
Advisory Opinions office of the State Department will only overrule a
consular officer’s decision if it represents an erroneous conclusion
of law. However, the AO will not overrule a decision based on the facts of
a particular situation (which involves most determinations of "subjective"
fraud). Consular decisions are largely non-reviewable by any court.
(However, Representative Barney Frank for several years has proposed
legislation to create an appeals board for consular decisions.)</p>
<s>With regard to INS fraud determinations, denial of certain petitions are
appealable to the Administrative Appeals Office of the INS, and
subsequently to a federal district court, although often the information
on which the INS denies the petition is not made available to the
petitioner to rebut during an appeal. Denials of admission to the United
States under expedited removal are specifically exempt from any type of
administrative or judicial review of the determinations by immigration
inspectors. The only review allowable is by an immediate supervisor, who
often reviews only the record prepared by the inspector. Thus, individuals
who find themselves banished for five years under expedited removal
procedures for erroneous applications of the law have no real way to
appeal or reopen their case.</p>
<t>This situation flies in the face of our judicial tradition of due process,
and, to many—both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens, can smack of
arbitrary decision-making. Allowing for review of these cases before a
judge, with an opportunity to present countervailing evidence, would do
much to add credence to the system.</p> </blockquote> So with Sandi's
case, being denied by the consulate, she probably cannot appeal (although
it said "largely not reviewable" leaving one with at least a little hope
that one isn't in the "largely" category) but in my case, not denied by
the consulate yet rather under administrative review at the INS, if denied
by the INS I believe I still have the right to appeal (though I may never
find out exactly what it is I'm appealing because I may never be afforded
the opportunity to see the evidence against me).<br> <br> </body> </html>

--------------000303080103060504070707--

Michael Voight

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

One or more of these numbers are incorrect. .25 percent of 300 million is not near
76000. 1 percent of a million is easily calculated 3 million. 1/4 of that is 750000.

Either there weren't 300 million inspections, 76000 removals, and/or 1/4 of one
percent removed

Andrew Defaria

--------------030708020304050009070901

Michael Voight wrote:

    >
    >
[usenetquote2]>> INS data show that of the 300 million foreign nationals inspected for admission[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> last year, 76,113 of them were removed under the so-called "expedited removal"[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> process due to "fraud or misrepresentation." This represents only one-quarter of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> one percent of the total number of visitors to the United States.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

I didn't write the article - I just copied and pasted it. But now that you mention it
your right. It's 75000 / 300000000 = 0.00025371 or .025371% which says that it's even
less rampant!

--------------030708020304050009070901

<html> <head> </head> <body> Michael Voight wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]">Andrew DeFaria wrote: <blockquote type="cite">
INS data show that of the 300 million foreign nationals inspected for admission last
year, 76,113 of them were removed under the so-called "expedited removal" process due
to "fraud or misrepresentation." This represents only one-quarter of one percent of
the total number of visitors<br> to the United States.<br> </blockquote> <!---->One
or more of these numbers are incorrect. .25 percent of 300 million is not near 76000.
1 percent of a million is easily calculated 3 million.
1/4 of that is 750000.<br> <br> Either there weren't 300 million inspections, 76000
removals, and/or 1/4 of one percent removed</blockquote> I didn't write the article
- I just copied and pasted it. But now that you mention it your right. It's 75000 /
300000000 = 0.00025371 or 0.025371% which says that it's even less rampant!<br>
</body> </html>

--------------030708020304050009070901--

Sandi

Well I have been hesitant to share all the details with the group - but decided the
bennies are greater than the risk of the negative comments.

Patrick and I love eachother and don't want to give up this fight.

Note: Patrick says he does not remember all the details exactly and from what he has
told me this is the best info I can muster so far.

Some of the details may be wrong.

I also don't know what the number is on the waiver form yet. (There is only so much
money avail. for long distance calls to Ghana -- and alot of things to talk about!)

The Emb. Adjudicator did say that the record indicates that he was "arrested and
deported" for falsifying a visa and that there was no shipping company.
    >
    >

Someone had commented that they couldn't find info on crew visas. Well they are C1 or
D visas (per the Adjudicator at the Embassy).

    >
    >
    >
    >

A: Detained at the airport. At the time of his entry, Patrick says the immigration
officer called and found the ship had left - however the Embassy Adjudicator says
the record indicates that he gave false information, and that there was no such
shipping company. (This she told me over the phone. I have no paper copy of the
denial yet.)

at this point - I want to tell you that I believe Patrick is telling the truth. He
has no copies of any of the paperwork, they did not give him an I-94, nor any
paperwork and as far as I can tell there was no paper contract for him to report to
work. I have been told that Ghanaians prefer to transact business on a verbal promise
as opposed to contracts, so this does not surprize me.

I am sending for the FOIA (a copy of the record from the POE) and will see what is
going on. Patrick didn't have any paperwork when they sent him back. Apparently there
is some kind of lodging quarters at the POE for detainees. And this is where he
stayed for 4 days. He did not know what was going on during that time, and then they
called him in to talk with him and asked him what he wanted to do - and he said he
would just as soon go home as he had no friends or family. This seems strange to me
that they would ASK him what he wanted to do if he was in trouble for falsifying
anything - as doesn't it make sense that if there was a consensus in the POE that he
was at fault, they would not ask him, but simply send him home?

    >
    >
    >

I don't know, but I am thinking that with the different time zones, etc... and the
way they do things in Ghana, it is possible that this part of the process could have
been more carefully and cautiously handled. However, that is a SPILLED MILK issue at
this time.
    >
    >

I only knew that he flew back upon mutual decision bet. him and the female imm.
officer. I will have to find out more on that - although I think it is somewhat
irrelevant (correct me if I am wrong.)

The Emb. Adjudicator did say that the record indicates that he was "arrested and
deported" for falsifying a visa and that there was no shipping company.

    >
    >
    >
Yes, I just found out that the record indicates some bad issues. Patrick had
suggested that we send for the FOIA records early on cuz he was curious what the
record said. All he knew for sure is that they detained him and sent him on home
after 4 days. I didn't think we needed to do this - thought that if we were honest,
and reported on the I-129 everything we knew, then it would breeze through. We just
thought he was deported cuz he missed his ship and therefore the reason for the C-1/D
visa was mute. We did not know they thought he was lying.

We submitted all of this info (Patrick's memory of the incident) with the I-129
application.

It really peaves us that there was never a mention of possible problem here before
hand. I do appreciated Trudy's help at the Embassy. She was the lady that we worked
with as soon as I found out the visa was approved on this end. Perhaps she did not
know of Patrick's record, but I had weekly contact with her asking her if they had
rec'd the packet yet from the US INS so that we could schedule an interview.

We had no clue that there would be a problem. But that is also water under
the bridge.

I have to tell you all that when something like this happens... you go through a
gamut of emotions - and you want to find someone or something to put the blame on.
You wonder even if you should blame your fiancee. However, I think it is important to
keep your cool and just go with the flow as best you can.

I have questioned and re-questioned Patrick on it and he is solidly holding that he
is telling the truth. And as his girlfriend and fiance
- I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE HIM UNTIL THERE IS EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. He is a
wonderful guy - I prefer him to any man I have ever known. If we do find out
there is evidence to the contrary, I will still work with him on this thing...
as I know people make mistakes -- and fall victum to circumstances.

For example... I learned this week that a nother friend that is a Ghanaian has just
completed seaman school in Ghana. Now there is some company from Germany that
requires a $20 application fee - and if he can pay that, he can apply for employment
with them. Doesn't this sound like a possible scam? Why does he have to pay such an
exorbitant amount (in thier economy) to possibly work, when he is already unemployed.
I am a recent computer programmer graduate and do get offeres from companyies that if
I pay them a fee, they will submit my resume. (and yes, I am unemployed currently,
except for temp jobs - to answer the questions about our ability to pay for a lawyer,
and my need for a co-sponsor.)

Anyway, perhaps Patrick was a victum of some kind of scam where he paid a fee and
someone then faxed him this letter that said, ok, you go to New York and board such
and such a ship... and perhaps that is why there never was a ship or a real company?
Or maybe there was a ship, but the Immigration officer dialed the wrong number? aT
THIS POINT, IT IS ALL CONJECTURE, AND WE HAVE TO WAIT TO GET THE RECORD.

Patrick says the shipping company faxed him the letter about the employment. And he
doesn't have a copy of it anymore. (perhaps he gave his copy to the embassy when
applying for the visa).

By-the-way... I will take the blame for not sending for the records earlier... I
figured that as long as we told the truth in our I-129 app, it would be fine. It
sounded to me from Patrick's report of the situation that he was sent home cuz he
missed the ship - therefore his visa's purpose was no longer valid. Seemed to be a
near harmless situation to me.

In case anyone is wondering what we are planning now, we really arn't sure... We know
we want to see eachother badly. I want to move to Ghana - but if I up and do that
now, the financial situation is bleak. So we are thinking as soon as we can muster
the money - I will go for a vist, then come back here to work and save some money to
return there with. (Money to get established on.)

In the meantime, I will consult an attorney and send for the POE record. That should
help us figure out what we are up against.

-Sandi

Sandi

Well - we are making it through somehow since the nightmare on Jan. 14th. I just
talked to Patrick and somehow I think it will all be ok...

But I have been researching and have some Q's.

1. they gave him a letter at the end of his interview telling what he needed. I-601
Waiver was checked and Aff. of support. DO WE ALSO NEED TO FILE I-212 SINCE HE WAS
DEPORTED WHILE TRYING TO ENTER? IF SO, DO WE PAY $340 FOR BOTH, OR $170 FOR EACH?

2. He was removed (I believe) under Act 212(a)(9)(A)(i) - BUT I AM WONDERING IF HE IS
UNDER THE 3 YEAR BAN AS I THOUGHT I READ SOMEPLACE THAT BECAUSE OF A RECENT
AMENDMENT - THE 3 YEAR BAN APPLIED (at least to certain situations).

3. FIANCE VISA APPLICATION AGAIN? If we wanted to wait until the ban is lifte to
proceed, we would probably have to re-apply for the fiance visa, since it is
likely to be the 5 year ban... putting us around March 16, 2004 for the ban-lift.

4. IF I GO TO GHANA AND GET MARRIED IN SAY 5 MONTHS - and we apply for the waiver now
as part of our I-129F fiance' visa - will the waiver still go through, and what
else might happen that I should know?

THANKS FOR ALL THE PRAYERS AND WELL-WISHES AND ADVICE.

-Sandi and Patrick

http://profiles.yahoo.com/black_santino (pics)
5. HOW DO WE GET THE ATTY GENERAL TO CONSENT TO REAPPLICATION? Act
5(a)(1)(A)(i) Exception.-Clauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply to an alien seeking
admission within a period if, prior to the date of the alien's
reembarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt to be
admitted from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has
consented to the alien's reapplying for admission.

[email protected] (sandi)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > 1. He had a crew visa.. Which permits being in the country for meeting his ship.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > 2. His plane was 6 hours late.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > 3. He was detained.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Where was he detained? At the airport, at the dock or somewhere else.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > If Air Ghana was "notorious" for late flights, and a 6 hour delay caused him to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > miss the ship, how much time would he have had without the delay?? After all, you[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > generally have to report on board a ship well before it leaves.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >How was he sent back?[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > None of this was mentioned before when you were asking about other things in this[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > group. Did you just now find out about it?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Andy Platt

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

No, just the form they gave you. Remember our key advice earlier - get an attorney!

    >
    >
    >

It's a five year ban the way I read it:

"(9) 12/ ALIENS PREVISOUSLY Removed.-

(A) Certain aliens previously removed.-

(B) Arriving aliens.-Any alien who has been ordered removed under section
235(b)(1) or at the end of proceedings under section 240 initiated upon the alien's
arrival in the United States and who again seeks admission within 5 years
of the date of such removal (or within 20 years in the case of a second or
subsequent removal or at any time in the case of an alien convicted of an
aggravated felony) is inadmissible."

However, he can't be classed as inadmissable according to that ruling until he tries
to re-enter, unless you don't have the full story - e.g., did he try to enter having
already been banned? Anyway, it seems to me that this should apply:

"iii) Exception.-Clauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply to an alien seeking admission
within a period if, prior to the date of the alien's reembarkation at a place outside
the United States or attempt to be admitted from foreign contiguous territory, the
Attorney General has consented to the alien's reapplying for admission. "

I'm guessing the consulate think that the waiver is needed to get (iii) but that's
not the way I read it. Again, a lawyer is necessary here.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

If you get married then you would need to file an I-130 (and still need a waiver).

Andy.

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

Sandi

Andy: Thanks for your response ... I do plan to consult an atty, but I also hope to
learn as much as I can on my own as I have very little money for an atty.

At any rate, you said in response to my Q...

my Q:
[usenetquote2]>> 4. IF I GO TO GHANA AND GET MARRIED IN SAY 5 MONTHS - and we apply[/usenetquote2]
for
    >
    >

you said: If you get married then you would need to file an I-130 (and still need
a waiver).

NEW Q: DO YOU THINK WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE I-130 INTERVIEW TO APPLY FOR THE WAIVER,
OR CAN WE APPLY FOR IT NOW AND THEN HAVE THE RESULTS APPLY TO THE I-130 LATER?

(They are expecting the waiver application at the embassy - to complete the
processing of the I-129.)

thanks!

-Sandi

Andy Platt

    >
    >

Very sensible.

    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> >> 4. IF I GO TO GHANA AND GET MARRIED IN SAY 5 MONTHS - and we apply[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > the waiver now as part of our I-129F fiance' visa - will the waiver still go[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > through, and what else might happen that I should know?[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

I'm afraid I don't know. They should be able to carry it across but I wouldn't
count on it.

Andy.

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

Jade

If you get married you will no longer be eligible for the I129f. You would have to start the whole process over again and wait to apply for the waiver after the I130 interview. In order to file the waiver you have to have a visa "waiting" for the waiver to apply to. In a weird sort of way they're saying you have to be "approved" for the visa you need in order to apply for the waiver. There are a lot of factors you have to look at. If you go ahead and file the wavier now for the I129f you have to pay $170 US. It can take several months to get a reply. If during that time you decide to get married - you loose everything that you've put into the I129f - since it will no longer be a valid visa type for you. Talk to an attorney - see what they say. Ultimately you have to make the decision which way to go. We currently have a waiver pending for an I129 visa in Montreal. The INS has had the waiver since November 26th with no response. Get used to waiting. Good luck!