Anyone one with approval with prior entries?

[angela256z]

So I am just wondering who on the board has been approved when your spouse had entries prior to 1997 and you admitted to it? I am seeing so many shady things going on lately in CDJ regardin medical exams and prior entry that I would just like to know.

My husband entered in 1992 when he was 17 and left in 1993 when he was 18 and spent a almost 2 years in which 1 year was after his 18th birthday. So I know that these are not suppose to count, but anyone else actually been approved where they admitted to the entries? Anyone denied because of it?

[dduran]

Hi Angela256 my husband came in 91 return 96 he applied 97 for a travel visa thou a false company which they paid 50 dollars (false job promised) and they were denied visa. Our 1st interview 8/06 he was denied. The Officer was female and very nice, she told him because we forgot to mention that he re-entered 5/97 he was bar 1 yr and able apply waiver.

[kitkat1]

So I am just wondering who on the board has been approved when your spouse had entries prior to 1997 and you admitted to it? I am seeing so many shady things going on lately in CDJ regardin medical exams and prior entry that I would just like to know.

My husband entered in 1992 when he was 17 and left in 1993 when he was 18 and spent a almost 2 years in which 1 year was after his 18th birthday. So I know that these are not suppose to count, but anyone else actually been approved where they admitted to the entries? Anyone denied because of it?

He had one entry in 1992 when he was 17, he stayed for one year, and during that one year he turned 18? (I'm confused b/c you said 2 years).

The illegal presence was before 1997 so it does not "count".

The INS provided additional guidance on June 17, 1997. In its June 17, 1997 memo, the INS changed its mind and stated that only periods of unlawful presence after April 1, 1997 would count toward the bar contained in INA §212(a)(9)(C).

http://www.americanlaw.com/unlawfulmemo5.html

DOS Cable on Unlawful Presence -- April 4, 1998


24. Per Ref A, no period of tine prior to April 1, 1997, counts toward
unlawful presence for 9B purposes. Because the 9B clock did not start
ticking until 4/1/97, no alien could have been subject to the three-year
bar of 9B1 prior to September 28, 1997 (181 days after April 1), and no
alien can be subject to the ten-year bar of 9B2 until April 1, 1998, at the
earliest.

25. There are several other types of unlawful presence which do not count
toward the 9B calculation. The most notable exception applies to unlawful
presence prior to the alien's 18th birthday. Under INA
212(a)(9)(B)(ii)(I), "no period of time in which an alien is under 18 years
of age shall be taken into account in determining the period of unlawful
presence ...." In other words, for 9B to apply, the alien must have been
unlawfully present in the U.S. more than 180 days, beginning on or after
the alien's eighteenth birthday. There is no way that an alien under the
age of 18 could be ineligible under 9B.

[angela256z]

He stayed almost 2 years. This is dates are guestimates, but he came in 1992 at 17 lets say in July. He then left in 94 in Jan and his b-day is in may so yes almost two years, but before his next birthday so he was 17 upon entry and 18 upon exit. He can not remember the exact months though. He says it was over a year and he was 17 when he came 18 when he left. I only ask because I have heard of so many recent horror stories I don't want them to say oh he was here before and not let us file a waiver. I know the law says they don't count, but will CDJ honor that? I mean I feel reall bad for the one girl who's brother got denied because he went by the law. I think that was ce&ll. He had less than 12 months prior unlawful presence and she is currently fighting for him. I am sure you have seen it. I just worry to much I am sure to die of a heart attack before I am 30.

[Lachulagreeneyes]

It seems to me it wouldnt matter because its all before 1997.

[kitkat1]

1) It was BEFORE 1997: no period of time prior to April 1, 1997, counts toward unlawful presence

2) Lying is not exactly a smart idea, especially when you have no reason to lie and the law is on your side. In ce&ll's case, the consulate clearly made an error, and her BIL and sister left without speaking to a supervisor, or showing them the law, or even pointing out their error. That's why they are having so much trouble now.

You've got a good 12 months or so before you'll be dealing with this - I wouldn't worry so much right now.

[angela256z]

Ok I will try not to worry. I do not plan on lying. We just don't know the dates. We know he was 17 when he entered and 18 when he left and it was over a year. Laurel said to estimate dates and put that they are not the exact dates. So that is what we will do. Hubby wanted to lie when we first talked about all this stuff years ago, but he knows we are not going to do that. I guess it all seems like now that we have started I have no time and I know I do....but that is my stupid butt. How did I become the worried one in my family. Geez...