Panama 601 Waiver, Colombian K1 waiver

[chicagomikeo]

Does anyone have any experience with dealing with a 601 waiver in Panama for suspect of prostitution. My fiancee worked in Panama in 2007, in a massage parlor for 7 monthes. We were denied at our original interview and told that we could apply for a waiver that would get reviewed in Panama. The officer said that Colombian women worked as prostitutes 99.99% of the time in Panama. I went for that interview and was told that my hardship letter would play a very important role in our request.

What is the best strategy to deal with this waiver. I am hoping that someone has had simular experience. Please help.....

[cupcake]

I haven't personally heard of this. Have you consulted with an attorney? Is there some sort of evidence beyond her choice of profession in Panama that would make her suspect?

I was wondering if you would like to share a timeline of your fiance's entries to the US, if any, paperwork filed on her behalf, etc?

[mrs.Lema623]

I would consult with an attorney. Good Luck

[emt103c]

Was she ever accused of prostitution or arrested? Was her particular massage parlor like that or known to be like that?

[Jardinera]

Can you tell the section of the law (should start with 212(a) ....) that they gave you? I think this may fall under a different area than the normal criminal stuff...

Anyway, I would strongly recommend you consult with Laurel Scott at scottimmigration.net. She's had experience with Panama, but more importantly, she'll be able to give you some good ideas about how to address this if you can't fight it.

[chicagomikeo]

Thanks for the advice... No she never had an arrest, but the officer said that she was sure. I supplied a mountain of paperwork with our request. I have been to Panama 3 times, Bogota three times and we went to Equadore one time for vacation. I gave a hundred photos and a log of thousands of notes, letters. They did comment that I spent a lot of time, more than usual. We talk every night on the internet for hours. they never even really looked at our relationship evidence. The paperwork they gave us stated section 212(a)(1)(D)(1). Our time line is as follows; We filed our K1 paperwork last year about June 08, our interview was in March. I am sorry to complain but the seperation is very very difficult, I know that many people are in this situation.... Thank you for all of the advice and I hope to hear from more people. I will reach out to Laurel Scott, any thanks again for all of your suggestions!

[Jardinera]

They aren't questioning your relationship. That is not at issue.

Are you sure it's not 212(a)(2)(D)(i):

(D) Prostitution and commercialized vice.-Any alien who-
(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,


I suspect this is what you are up against. I don't remember a case like this coming across the forum. Definitely talk to Laurel.

You will need a very strong hardship waiver and to prove in any manner you can that she didn't engage in prostitution - (and if she did, no judgment from me, but you'll want to somehow prove rehabilitation).

[chicagomikeo]

Thankyou Laura, it was very nice of you to take out the time to answer my post. I think you could be right, It may be an i but looks like a (1). The conditions in South America are very dire and people fight to have the basicis in life everyday. I understand that this routinely happens to women from Thailand if they have worked in any kind of a bar. Thanks again.... you are an angel to help so many people.

[cptenezaca]

Hang in there...I see your status is brokenhearted....man have we all been there. I dont' think my status has changed from depressed this whole time. It's incredibly difficult and terribly painful. I am so sorry to everyone for having to go through this.

Chrissy

[cupcake]

Laura was right that you need to consult with Laurel.

I'm confused why an officer would make a judgment based on suspicion of a profession that may or may not go with prostitution, but not on her individual case (no arrests, her place of business was never "busted", etc)...

Is suspicion of prostitution enough to charge someone with (a)(2)(D)(i)? That seems like a dangerous line to walk if that is the case.

Doesn't there need to be more proof than just charging someone based on "rumor"? Sorry, I'm confused.

[ReynJai]

Hello Chi,

I live in Panama and i'm Panamanian, and unfortunately, i would say yes 98% of the Colombians work in this profession when they come to Panama. (btw my dad is Colombian). Although, i have meet quite a few that work in banks and beauty salons. it's just that when he goes out, the officer, to the bars this is what he see's this and like most humans make those assumptions. it has also been in the media about this issue. so it is hard for them. so i feel for you on this especially if she worked in a massage parlor (bad rep). and prostitution is not illegal in Panama, so the police just profit on this by harassing them arresting them for "investigation" and release them in the morning or better yet, they threaten them to arrest but really want bribes or worse sexual favors.

but hang in there and like what Laura said see Laurel.

[ANALUCIA]

Tal ves puedo ayudarte, este caso es similar al mio..............Maybe i can help you, this case is similar to mine