Sapphyre

On Mar 16, 2:39 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Well, I'm talking in general here.
> Have you lied to anyone before since you were born?

Everyone lies... but not everyone lies to the police, immigration,
secret service, etc, etc. I would prefer not to lie to people who can
arrest me, charge me, make my life hell, etc. You think it sucks
because you were denied? It would be a whole lot worse if you lied...
I know someone who lied, he thought he'd get away with it, yeah, he's
rethinking things right now while he stays in Canada knowing he can't
travel to the US anymore. And his experience is an awakening... I
don't think I want to travel with anyone I don't know REALLY WELL,
just in case that friend of mine lies to immigration on some minor
stupid thing and gets caught. I don't need someone else's lies to hurt
me, because if I have to lie to immigration, I should really rethink
my actions.

> Also, how come you don't put your real name? Don't you think that's
> form of lying too?

Why would anyone put their real/legal name on the internet? Identity
theft, fraud, harassment, etc. If that's enough of a reason. I don't
think I'm lying, because my name is Sapphyre. It's not what it says on
my birth certificate, but it's been my name for a long time. I don't
randomly make up identities to post everywhere, but even if I did make
up real names, how would you know?

> Yes, I chose the truth before and made me suffer. Sometimes you just
> have to choose lesser evil. Like what I said you're perfect if you
> have never lied to anyone before.

He didn't say he didn't lie to anyone, he just said he didn't lie to
immigration.

> Don't you think that those 40% lied to immigration did they tell the
> truth before?

40% lie to immigration all the time, at least that's what immigration
officers think of the people that pass through. It's stupid lies (how
long have you been gone, where did you go, where are you going, what
are you doing, how much stuff do you have with you...)

People sometimes say what they think the officer wants to hear... and
practice makes perfect, I guess some people lie at their job all the
time (like I do) and get used to making stuff up. I'd rather not do
that in my personal life because I don't want to remember everything I
tell everyone. My trip up question (when I told the truth) was how
much money I had on me. I didn't think there was anything wrong with
how much I was carrying, but maybe if I had $100 and a credit card,
that's what he wanted to hear. Who knows, I told the truth, I went to
secondary, I was allowed in, I'm not barred from the US. I live my
life knowing that I told the truth, and it hasn't hurt me yet, and the
little speedbumps in the road are just to remind me how much harder my
life would be if I ended up in secondary after lying.

> I'm just sharing some past experiences here, and some people that I
> know of. In my situation, I rather take the risk of lying and get in
> than tell the truth and could not get in in the US.

If telling the truth gets you denied, something's missing here...
you're either missing the right visa, don't have the right proof of
your intentions, etc. Maybe if you shared those stories in detail,
those of us who've been to secondary more than once could shed some
light onto your treatment.

S.

JulianB

Hey, so do I

J. J. Farrell

On Mar 16, 5:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
> I know lying is BAD not only to an entry officer but to anyone. But
> there are just some situations it's your only choice.

Name some.

> INS doesn't
> have any record how long have you been gone outside the country.
> (correct me if I'm wrong).

INS hasn't existed for years, so you're not wrong.

> Telling an entry officer that you're gone
> for 2 weeks there's no way that they can verify that.

That may be true, but probably isn't these days. However, it's
irrelevant. If the applicant's story isn't believed, it's up to the
applicant to prove what he said in front of an immigration judge. The
burden of proof is on the applicant.

> As many know, being honest to an immigration officer will get you in
> trouble sometimes. I applied one time for a US visa because the
> company is sending me for training in the US. I was very honest but
> they still denied me twice on 2 different occassions.

Which presumably means you didn't qualify for the visa.

> Another situation, when a US company flew me over to the US for a job
> interview, when the immigration officer asked me what would I do in
> the US, I told him I'll just visit somebody. I lied this time

It's not obvious to me that you lied here, but if you did - why?

> and he
> let me in. To my surprise, when he asked me what I'm doing I told him
> that I'm a System Analyst and he recommended me to work in the US. I
> was shocked.

Why?

choppi

They are tough cookies at Shannon airport. I had a horrible experience with them there and I was being honest when they were questioning me. Good luck whatever you do!

Sapphyre

On Mar 16, 7:44 pm, "J. J. Farrell" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 5:28 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > I know lying is BAD not only to an entry officer but to anyone. But
> > there are just some situations it's your only choice.
> Name some.

Normally I don't agree that it's the only choice, although I would say
sometimes it's a wise choice (for children) to lie to strangers. My
parents taught me not to trust people. I'll name one... when I was
kidnapped 10 years ago, I lied to my abductor. it served me well, I've
never felt so lucky (not that I needed to say anything at all, but it
worked, and I'll spare you the details).

I've also lied when people (general strangers) ask me what it is I do
for a living... I didn't want to tell someone I handled thousands of
dollars as a job (for a private company), because I didn't want to
invite trouble. So while I admitted where I worked, I didn't admit
what I did. Of course I'd tell Immigration folks, but I don't think
they care, they just care that I'm gainfully employed, and I can prove
I work where I say I work. I wouldn't lie on a resume, but it's past
tense anyway, I just wouldn't tell someone who asked (and strangers
are nosy), that counting money is a job I do. Just like I wouldn't
admit to customers that on the weekends I'm counting the store deposit
and doing paperwork, I just let them think I don't work, because they
never see me at the front cash.

Just thought I'd answer, since you asked, although I'm sure your more
interested in Roger's answer since he admits to lying to USCIS.

> That may be true, but probably isn't these days. However, it's
> irrelevant. If the applicant's story isn't believed, it's up to the
> applicant to prove what he said in front of an immigration judge. The
> burden of proof is on the applicant.

With visitors, there won't be a judge, it will just be "go
home" (after some period of time, which could be 1 hour, could be a
few days, I guess it depends how deep you get yourself in at the
border). In the case of the thread it's for returning resident, so
it's not quite the same as visiting. I just bring lots of proof to
back up whatever they ask me (and I answer in turn), and I don't
volunteer it. If they want to know, they'll just look. them looking
has probably saved me at least once because while they're "searching",
they find things that I don't think are important, but they mean
something to the officer... like a business card from a dental office
that has an appointment noted on it (from my wallet). I don't think of
that as being important, but if I say I'm going to be there two days,
and my dental appointment is in four days, well... at worst they can
call and find out if I actually have an appointment. (And reception
will say so, because my employer is authorized to verify that I have
an appointment once I give him the date/time, in lieu of paying for a
note to be off work for an hour).

> > As many know, being honest to an immigration officer will get you in
> > trouble sometimes. I applied one time for a US visa because the
> > company is sending me for training in the US. I was very honest but
> > they still denied me twice on 2 different occassions.
> Which presumably means you didn't qualify for the visa.

That's my theory, if telling the truth means someone is denied entry,
they're not supposed to enter. Lying just covers up that fact.

I've travelled to visit male friends before, and the pressumption has
been that I'm going to get married and stay, especially when they ask
"how long have you known this person?" Last time I was asked, I had
known that person for six years. So to them, it's a pretty long time
to be hanging around with someone. Maybe he figured I would have
gotten married previously if that's what I wanted to do. Nothing was
stopping me from doing so on a previous visit, and had we done a K-1
or something, I would have been living there with a Greencard by then.
So he gave me the benefit of the doubt and let me through. There seems
to be a little more tolerance for this stuff between Canada and the
US, because visiting is such an easy thing to do. They don't seem to
mind that people have friends on the other side of the border. They
just don't want people living in the US illegally, overstaying, not
having ties to their country, getting married and adjusting status
without the proper visa, etc. I never worried about it, but the burden
of proof is on me at the border, to prove I'm coming back to Canada.

S.

Sapphyre

On Mar 16, 8:36 pm, choppi <[email protected]> wrote:
> They are tough cookies at Shannon airport. I had a horrible experience
> with them there and I was being honest when they were questioning me.
> Good luck whatever you do!


My understanding is that preclearance facilities are tougher. If they
deny you, what do they do anyway? It's not like you can be arrested by
them if they won't let you in. When you're on US soil, things are
different.

so far as I know, land borders are the worst for anyone who's on
public transportation or walking on foot. They probably see as many
vagrants in a day as I get whacky phone calls I have to screen.

S.

Joe Feise

Sapphyre wrote on 03/16/07 20:07:

> With visitors, there won't be a judge, it will just be "go
> home" (after some period of time, which could be 1 hour, could be a
> few days, I guess it depends how deep you get yourself in at the
> border).


That depends. People who apply for entry with a B1/B2 visa are entitled to a
hearing before an immigration judge. People who apply for entry using the visa
waiver are not, since one of the things waived with the visa waiver is the right
to a hearing.
--
I am not a lawyer.
For reliable advice, consult a competent immigration attorney.

Finalizer

"Joe Feise (Immigration)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Sapphyre wrote on 03/16/07 20:07:
|
| > With visitors, there won't be a judge, it will just be "go
| > home" (after some period of time, which could be 1 hour, could be a
| > few days, I guess it depends how deep you get yourself in at the
| > border).
|
|
| That depends. People who apply for entry with a B1/B2 visa are entitled to
a
| hearing before an immigration judge. People who apply for entry using the
visa
| waiver are not, since one of the things waived with the visa waiver is the
right
| to a hearing.
| --
|

That is NOT exactly correct. Alien applicants (except certain classes) for
admission who are refused or found inadmissible by an immigration officer
can be ordered removed without further hearing or review by an Immigration
Judge.

See INA Sec 235 (b)(1)(A)(i)

(b) Inspection of Applicants for Admission.-

(1) Inspection of aliens arriving in the United States and certain other
aliens who have not been admitted or paroled.-

(A) Screening.-


(i) In general.-If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other
than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United
States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section
212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) , the officer shall order the alien removed from
the United States without further hearing or review unless the alien
indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 208 or a
fear of persecution.

Joe Feise

Finalizer wrote on 03/17/07 01:37:

> "Joe Feise (Immigration)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> | Sapphyre wrote on 03/16/07 20:07:
> |
> | > With visitors, there won't be a judge, it will just be "go
> | > home" (after some period of time, which could be 1 hour, could be a
> | > few days, I guess it depends how deep you get yourself in at the
> | > border).
> |
> |
> | That depends. People who apply for entry with a B1/B2 visa are entitled to
> a
> | hearing before an immigration judge. People who apply for entry using the
> visa
> | waiver are not, since one of the things waived with the visa waiver is the
> right
> | to a hearing.
> | --
> |
>
> That is NOT exactly correct. Alien applicants (except certain classes) for
> admission who are refused or found inadmissible by an immigration officer
> can be ordered removed without further hearing or review by an Immigration
> Judge.
>
> See INA Sec 235 (b)(1)(A)(i)
>
> (b) Inspection of Applicants for Admission.-
>
> (1) Inspection of aliens arriving in the United States and certain other
> aliens who have not been admitted or paroled.-
>
> (A) Screening.-
>
>
> (i) In general.-If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other
> than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United
> States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section
> 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) , the officer shall order the alien removed from
> the United States without further hearing or review unless the alien
> indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 208 or a
> fear of persecution.

That only applies in certain cases covered by INA 212(a)(6)(C) and 212(a)(7). It
is called expedited removal.
For other cases, INA 235 says:
"(2) Inspection of other aliens.-
(A) In general.-Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien
who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer
determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt
entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under
section 240."

-Joe
--
I am not a lawyer.
For reliable advice, consult a competent immigration attorney.

Finalizer

"Joe Feise (Immigration)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Finalizer wrote on 03/17/07 01:37:
|
| > "Joe Feise (Immigration)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| > news:[email protected]...
| > | Sapphyre wrote on 03/16/07 20:07:
| > |
| > | > With visitors, there won't be a judge, it will just be "go
| > | > home" (after some period of time, which could be 1 hour, could be a
| > | > few days, I guess it depends how deep you get yourself in at the
| > | > border).
| > |
| > |
| > | That depends. People who apply for entry with a B1/B2 visa are
entitled to
| > a
| > | hearing before an immigration judge. People who apply for entry using
the
| > visa
| > | waiver are not, since one of the things waived with the visa waiver is
the
| > right
| > | to a hearing.
| > | --
| > |
| >
| > That is NOT exactly correct. Alien applicants (except certain classes)
for
| > admission who are refused or found inadmissible by an immigration
officer
| > can be ordered removed without further hearing or review by an
Immigration
| > Judge.
| >
| > See INA Sec 235 (b)(1)(A)(i)
| >
| > (b) Inspection of Applicants for Admission.-
| >
| > (1) Inspection of aliens arriving in the United States and certain other
| > aliens who have not been admitted or paroled.-
| >
| > (A) Screening.-
| >
| >
| > (i) In general.-If an immigration officer determines that an alien
(other
| > than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the
United
| > States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section
| > 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) , the officer shall order the alien removed
from
| > the United States without further hearing or review unless the alien
| > indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 208 or a
| > fear of persecution.
|
| That only applies in certain cases covered by INA 212(a)(6)(C) and
212(a)(7). It
| is called expedited removal.

An applicant with a B1/B2 visa surely falls under INA 212(a)(7). Remember,
all applicants for admission are pressumed to be immigrants until the the
applicant proves otherwise. A B1/B2 visa holder applying for admission at
the POE who the inspector decides to be not coming in as a tourist but
likely to be an immigrant is inadmissible and can be ordered expeditiously
removed without any further hearing by an immigration judge.
So it is wrong to say, " B1/B2 visa are entitled to a hearing before an
immigration judge", as you have claimed earlier. Aliens, in general, do not
have any vested rights to be admitted into the US. If that applicant claims
asylum then he can be set up for a 240 hearing. It is an exception rather
than the rule!


| For other cases, INA 235 says:
| "(2) Inspection of other aliens.-
| (A) In general.-Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an
alien
| who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer
| determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a
doubt
| entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding
under
| section 240."
|

This section you have cited is a special case and it doesn't apply to a
regular tourist B1/B2. It is usually applied to an LPR who claims to be so
but can't fully prove his LPR status.

[email protected]

Thanks , to all of you have answered. I am still confused.
Will the officer have information on his screen as to when I left the
U.S.A?
I have stamps showing my entry to the USA.
If I remember correctly, I never show them the green card on
departure.
Coudl someone please give me a definitive answer.
i really appreciate all of your comments.

P.S. Is there an Immigration Officer amongs you?

Joe Feise

[email protected] wrote on 03/17/07 17:47:

> Thanks , to all of you have answered. I am still confused.
> Will the officer have information on his screen as to when I left the
> U.S.A?


Yes.

> I have stamps showing my entry to the USA.
> If I remember correctly, I never show them the green card on
> departure.


Doesn't matter. The airlines have to provide the data of the people they fly
into or out of the country to them. That's nowadays done electronically, even
before the flight takes off. That allows them to also compare the names with
their no-fly-list.
--
I am not a lawyer.
For reliable advice, consult a competent immigration attorney.

Templar

> Thanks , to all of you have answered. I am still confused.
> Will the officer have information on his screen as to when I left the
> U.S.A?
> I have stamps showing my entry to the USA.
> If I remember correctly, I never show them the green card on
> departure.
> Coudl someone please give me a definitive answer.
> i really appreciate all of your comments.
>
> P.S. Is there an Immigration Officer amongs you?

Why are you confused? The point is as clear as a day.
1. You should not lie to entry officers.
2. The entry officer may or may not have your record on screen.
(It's not as if homeland security will tell you what information
gets relayed to the point of entry).
2. The officers obtain the deprture record through airline. Thus, your
not showing your green card is irrelevant.
3. You should not lie to entry officers.

--

Joe Feise

Finalizer wrote on 03/17/07 13:25:

>
> So it is wrong to say, " B1/B2 visa are entitled to a hearing before an
> immigration judge", as you have claimed earlier.


I stand by my claim.

> Aliens, in general, do not
> have any vested rights to be admitted into the US.


I never said that. But they still have the right to appeal a decision by the
officer at the POE. If that wasn't the case, the explicit waiver on the I-94W
would not be needed. And an appeal would of course be decided by an immigration
judge.

-Joe
--
I am not a lawyer.
For reliable advice, consult a competent immigration attorney.

Finalizer

"Joe Feise (Immigration)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Finalizer wrote on 03/17/07 13:25:
|
| >
| > So it is wrong to say, " B1/B2 visa are entitled to a hearing before an
| > immigration judge", as you have claimed earlier.
|
|
| I stand by my claim.
|
| > Aliens, in general, do not
| > have any vested rights to be admitted into the US.
|
|
| I never said that. But they still have the right to appeal a decision by
the
| officer at the POE. If that wasn't the case, the explicit waiver on the
I-94W
| would not be needed. And an appeal would of course be decided by an
immigration
| judge.
|
| -Joe
| --

Well, I hope you'd find out the truth someday.
I'm not a layman in this immigration business but I concede that there are
times when it's really difficult to convince other people about a
misconception of the law. Being right does not always mean you'd be agreed
with.