bflava

Good evening everyone and good luck too as well,

212(a)(7)(A)(1)(I) was stamped in my passport i was refused entry into US in 2005 Oct, this was due to an overstay in 2004 July for 13 days on my VWP, (i was not refused entry in 2005 Jan when i visited) but in 2005 Oct i was refused and just put on the next flight back to UK and told to go apply for a visa and come visit by the officer.

My question is i have read and read on a few things on being refused entry(Violation of US immigration law) am now preparing to apply for a visa to visit and have requested for my police report. ( do I need a Waiver as some say?) very confused.

please help

materialcontroller

Have you had a look at the varying grounds of inadmissibility and available waivers here: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86933.pdf?

According to that document, INA 212(a)(7)(A) refers to "No entry documents - immigrants". I think you'll find this thread helpful: http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=711814.

Good luck to you.

crg

There is generally no waiver required for 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), a 13 day oversyay or for a VWP Refusal. The issuance of a regular visa is usually all that is needed to overcome it. Of course, they may or may not issue you a visa as it's a matter of discretion.

discoviking

In addition to what Crg said, you were of course ineligible to use the VWP again once you violated the rules of the VWP by overstaying 13 days. This is why you were refused entry, and now need to apply for a visitors visa. You probably knew that already, I'm just pointing it out for the benefit of others who may read this thread.

bflava

Discoviking, Yes i already knew i will need a visa whenthe officer told me that i cant let u in but u have to go get a visa if you want to come back as u have overstayed for 13 days.... but the question of waiver came up when i read inadmissable articles on the US immigration site.

Thanks materialcontroller and crg, i think i am now ready and thank you all for ur help and advice.. reassuring..

bflava

based on my situation am planning a vacation to puerto rico and just read of it being a common wealth of the US, Does this means I will need a visa to go there as well or its for the USA only as that is the country i violated its immigration visa????????

pls help thank u

crg

Puerto Rico is part of the US. The rules for traveling to PR are generally the same as for traveling to New York City or anywhere else in the US. You need a visa to go to PR.

S Folinsky

Summary refusal of admission of a VW applicant is either under (a)(6) or (a)(7). An (a)(7) refusal is essentially applicable only to the application in question.

bflava

thank u crg and everyone, your input is very valuable and thank you for your help.

crg

Hi,

Summary refusal of admission of a VWP applicant under 217 is possible under any and all grounds of 212(a)(1) through (10) (NOTE: some of the 212(a)(3) security grounds may have a different process where even some VWP safeguards related to credible fear are not available to a VWP applicant.)

A VWP applicant who appears to be inadmissible per 212(a)(2) for example, still would not get to see an IJ for a determination as to whether or not they are inadmissible under criminal grounds. They'd get the same VWP refusal process.

However, Expedited Removal under 235(b) is limited solely to 212(a)(7)(A) and (B) and 212(a)(6)(C). That may have been what you were thinking.

S Folinsky

Mea culpa -- I was thinking about the summary removal provisions when applying for admission with a non-immigrant visa.

That said, a 212(a)(7) refusal is applicable to the application and is not a finding of a ground that continues to exist. It should be noted that a finding that a person is not entitled to a classification on a visa is equivalent to "no visa."

crg

Correct. 7A1 is a snapshot ground of inadmissibility. The person was found to be an intending immigrant on that day. It doesn't mean they will be later if he/she can overcome the presumption of immigrant intent.

Correct. It would be "no immigrant visa". Since the INA defines the term "immigrant" as every alien except an alien who is within one of the classes of nonimmigrant aliens.

Someone attempting to enter with an F-2 visa who is intent on working without authorization would be an immigrant even if they don't plan to live in the US forever. 7A1 is for an immigrant without an immigrant visa. Someone seeking to enter as a B1 or WB for a "meeting" that crosses the line into unauthorized work would be considered an immigrant even if they only planned to stay a day.

Someone who was clearly a nonimmigrant who lost their nonimmigrant visa on the way or it was expired would be a 7B2.

Interestingly enough, either person could get ordered removed with a 5 year bar merely for asking to cross the border.

S Folinsky

When I teach immigration law, I make a point that it is a good idea to substitute some null phrase for the word "immigrant" in analysis of the structure of the Immigration & Nationality Act. I tend to use the term "banana." That way the impact of the normal definition of "immigrant" is avoided.

I will often make the point that Queen Elizabeth is an "immigrant" and a lawful one at that.

crg

That's a good idea. I can only imagine how many null phrases or words you must have to substitute for "child" considering how many different scenarios there are for what that word normally means.

S Folinsky

Actually, I do not use a null word for child. There is a large body of law outside of the immigration context on the concept. In fact, much of it pre-dates the United States.