Alzerom

Hey Captain:
First, you ask the question as a neophyte, and then you argue
with some wisdom that you picked up from who knows where as though you
were at the bar arguing a case.
Next, you demonstrate your weakness by saying you are not a part
of this charade.

If you conspire to help this girl into the country KNOWING that
there has been prior misdeeds you are indeed a part of it and share
the blame for encouraging her not to be truthful.
People can still be convicted of fraud even though they don't
"collect the money." Just ask several government contractors.
Don't nit-pick this apart as though she wasn't asking for money.
She WAS asking for money. Somewhere down line benifits might be paid
to Citizens with SSN numbers. She was requesting those benifits.
The Federal Government doesn't chase after new mothers in Mexico
because it's not worth the time and looks dumb internationally. This
doesn't mean the issue is forgotten.
Take the advice of FolinskyinLA.
The answer could still be "no VISA" even WITH and attorney.
Without an attorney it could come back at all of you when you are
64
I work at ssa.gov and have some practical insight into the
system.

If you do anything other than what FolinskyinLA said, you are just
what I said previously.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Be nice.

The Capn is smart enough to see the problem and wants to resolve it.

My only issue was with the implication that efforts should be taken to hide it.

Capn_flash

    > MY issue was with the question "how will they find out?" In over
    > 27 years of practice, that is a question I have learned should
    > give me pause.

That was not one of the questions. It was how long they keep it on
file, as in is there something like a statute of limitations? Not how
to avoid it but at some point maybe it's ancient history and doesn't
matter. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Dekka's Angel

Last time I checked there was no set period of time for the government to keep its records around. In the case of the SSA, logic dictates that, at a minimum, it has to keep records for the average lifetime of a US citizen since ultimately a person might need to collect benefits at some point. So I think it's a reasonable assumption that record of this will be around for around 78+ years (average life expectancy of a female). Hmm....come to think of it SSA might add a couple of decades so that they can cover things like survivors benefits, too - after all, people sometimes have spouses and kids who are entitled to benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act when they die.

Sarcastic, you say? Yes, but hopefully you also see the point you seem to keep missing.

FORGET the question of whether there are or are not records of what your GF (or your friend's GF) did. Stop asking about it. It is not the issue of concern. The ONLY issue of concern is whether, assuming they DO keep records, what can be done and what is going to be done about the problem.

The idea of "statute of limitations" comes into play only in terms of talking about things like criminal prosecution for her prior act. That is not what's at issue at all here. This is about a civil benefit you are hoping the government will grant. A benefit that is not granted without a bunch of questions about prior conduct.

There are people on these boards reporting that crimes committed decades ago in other countries are coming back to haunt them in connection with applications for marriage-based visas. Do you really think the government will just assume that an immigration-related fraud attempt (and yes, trying to get bogus work authorization is in my mind an immigration fraud, since folks born here don't need permission to work over the lawful age of their state of residence) committed *in* the US is "too old" to take into account under the same type of situation?

Seriously, now. My recommendation is that you stop worrying about what records are out there and how old they are, and start worrying about how to handle whatever you need to handle. Be realistic, and it will probably go a lot easier if you assume the worst case scenario in your planning while counting your blessings if you get something closer to the best.

Please. Take Folinskyinla's advice (and I will add mine, too, although I'm just a regular old boring lawyer and not an immigration lawyer). You need to be directing your GF's, or friend's GF's, questions to a competent immigration attorney.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

When it comes to immigration law, those of us in the immigration bar tend to chuckle when other lawyers bring up ideas such as "due process" "statute of limitations" "civil rights" and other quite quaint concepts.

Look, I lost a case last year involving a situation where my client "aided and abetted a 3 year old to violate the law." The statutory provision in question actually used the words "aid and abett" and any first year law student would gag at the concept of "aiding and abetting" [or a parent for that matter] a 3 year old to do anything.

Also, in the ongoing legal discussion I noted going on among immigration lawyers, it has been noted that although what your beloved did may not fall under one rubric of inadmissibility, it may very well fall under another. Lawyers can be quite creative at times -- and PROSCEUTORS are lawyers tool.

Andrew Defaria

Dekka's Angel wrote:

    > There are people on these boards reporting that crimes committed
    > decades ago in other countries are coming back to haunt them in
    > connection with applications for marriage-based visas. Do you really
    > think the
    > government will just assume that an immigration-related fraud attempt
    > (and yes, trying to get bogus work authorization is in my mind an
    > immigration fraud, since folks born here don't need permission to work
    > over the lawful age of their state of residence) committed *in* the US
    > is "too old" to take into account under the same type of situation?

The charge was not trying to get work authorization it was to get a SSN.
Maybe the intent was then to get work authorization but that's different.

Dekka's Angel

Different as a technical matter, you are correct. That type of hairsplitting, however, defies common sense and frankly the practical application of the law - people are not driven to use false documents unless there is a compelling reason, and evidence of conduct is used all the to prove intent and motive. She was not just hankering for a number so she could hang it on her wall. At least in that part of the world I live in there is only one truly compelling reason that causes folks to take such desperate steps - work authorization.

But even if I assume for devil's advocacy purposes that it wasn't work-related, a person only *needs* a social security number for the purposes of income reporting or accessing benefits/privileges authorized by a governmental entity (including the privilege of driving, in certain states like California). This is not exactly behavior that is likely to be ignored down the road.

BTW, the GF was never charged with anything. That's what begged all the questions about the records.

Capn_flash

    > The Capn is smart enough to see the problem and wants to resolve it.

Thank you for that. I am not trying to hide it, I want it all cleared
up. I never intetnionally implicated that. If some read that into it
sorry. My work requires several security clearances and I would never
compromise it by being involved with any fraud. The reason she
applied for the SSN was that she was told it would be easier to get a
drivers license with it. She speaks no English and does not know the
laws of the US. For those who insist on believing otherwise, sorry
but your critisism isn't useful.

I am learning along the way here. I have discussed this with several
lawyers up until they want a retainer to proceed further (minimum
request was $500, maximum $2000). As this issue won't be faced head
on for at least 3 to 4 years because we will continue to live in
Mexico, I'm don't see the need to pay that at this time.

Thank you again for the useful input whether positive or negative.

Duckie

what i dont understand, as the gf pretended to be a us citizen to obtain the ssn, why would she go for work authorization. i thought beeing a us citizen together with a ssc is good enough to work.

Dekka's Angel

Im' not referring to an EAD/work authorization document. "Work authorization" in this context I'm using to mean "the ability to work in the US undetected as an undocumented immigrant". A valid, unrestricted, social security number allows one to accept and receive wages/salary. And to get a drivers' license, at least in California. A drivers' license and social security number, validly issued, makes you virtually indetectible as an undocumented immigrant/illegal immigrant. Facially, those two documents are all you need to survive I-9 scrutiny. Even if they are issued based on false underlying documents, it still appears to both the federal government and your employer that you have the right to be here and to work. With a very low likelihood of ever being discovered.

No doubt, being on these NGs too long has caused me to become imprecise. Sorry to cause the confusion.

Duckie

thank you - maybe i am reading too much things in "work authorization" and think it has to be a document. and in a laywers view of point there might be a big difference in having all the ingrediences of work authorization and to actually make use of the faulty incrediences. to me as a normal person it does not make sense that some people put criminal actions into obtaining something they dont want to use. common sense does not seam to work with every law, i guess ...

Andrew Defaria

Dekka's Angel wrote:

    > Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
    >> The charge was not trying to get work authorization it was to get a
    >> SSN. Maybe the intent was then to get work authorization but that's
    >> different.
    > Different as a technical matter, you are correct. That type of
    > hairsplitting, however, defies common sense and frankly the practical
    > application of the law

Often that type of hairsplitting is exactly what drives the application
of the law. Look, all I'm saying is that I heard that this is a possible
defence. As such it should be explored.

    > - people are not driven to use false documents unless there is a
    > compelling reason, and evidence of conduct is used all the to prove
    > intent and motive. She was not just hankering for a number so she
    > could hang it on her wall. At least in that part of the world I live
    > in there is only one truly compelling reason that causes folks to take
    > such desperate steps - work authorization.

People use SSN's for lots of things - one of which is work
authorization. People use guns for many things - one of which is to kill
others. However we do not convict people of murder merely for purchasing
a gun.

    > But even if I assume for devil's advocacy purposes that it wasn't
    > work-related, a person only *needs* a social security number for the
    > purposes of income reporting or accessing benefits/privileges
    > authorized by a governmental entity (including the privilege of
    > driving, in certain states like California). This is not exactly
    > behavior that is likely to be ignored down the road.

Yes but is it criminal fraud behavior under the INA?

    > BTW, the GF was never charged with anything. That's what begged all
    > the questions about the records.

OK, change "charged" with "alleged" in my statement. Which, of course,
raises the question that if she did not actually commit fraud (accused
but not convicted) then can that be used against her by the BCIS? Yet
another reason a competent immigration attorney, experienced in such
matters, is needed.

Capn_flash

    > I work at ssa.gov and have some practical insight into the system.

I believe you do work for SSA as your response is typical of a
government employee who feels they must know everything when they are
actually clueless. It is not helpful but thank you for trying if that
is truly what your were trying to do with this rambling and personal
insults.