Does the consulate accept I-212s alone?

[lopay]

Does anyone no if the consulate is supposed to accept the I-212 alone, meaning when it is not with an I-601? I need to know because either the consulate really messed up, or USCIS and my lawyer really messed up. I took an I-212 with me to Juarez and they told me there was nothing they could do with it. USCIS responded to an inquiry from my senator's office saying that CDJ was waiting for an I-212 and that I could file it in conjunction with my immigrant visa application at the consulate. The consulate responded saying that they did not accept I-212s and that I need to mail it in. USCIS responded saying that normally the consulate accepts I-212's but in my case it would be better if I were to mail it in.

I need to know because I am about to file a grievance against my lawyer for sending me down there with the I-212, charging me $750 for the I-212 which he had not completed, and for some other things.

Anyone know? Has anyone ever filed an I-212 at CDJ?

[emt103c]

If you are doing 212 alone it is filed at the district office over the area of deportation, like the directions say. . .I just had to do the same thing a couple of months ago...look at the post up top from Hinke too. . .


*omitting choice words about immigration system and your attorney, since not necessary*

[lopay]

that's what I thought. The letter from USCIS to my senator's office reads:

"The girls may apply for and file the I-212 at the consulate in conjunction wth their immigrant visa".

I found this to be odd being that the consulate did not accept the I-212 we took with us and that the instructions say that if you are applying for an immigrant visa and are abroad, you have to file it with the field office that has jurisdiction over the port that processed your removal.

But just to be sure, has anyone else ever filed an I-212 alone at the consulate instead of sending it in. The second letter from USCIS said that normally the consulate accepts the I-212 but in my case it would be better if I mailed it in.

and thank you for your reply.

[lopay]

"I read your thread and what people told you there were all true. It does not matter if your stepdaughter left the US in 2000. The letter of expedited removal clearly states that she was ordered removed on October 7, 2003, and that would be the same thing as what they would have in their system. I don't think they can change that. That means her ban will be lifted on October 7, 2008. Since your case is kept open, you should be able to get an appointment anytime she becomes eligible for a visa. If your concern is that your stepdaughter will be falling under a different category after she's over 21 years old, then that's a different story. I think what you have to make sure is that a visa is available for her already anytime her ban is lifted. It doesn't matter when you can get an appointment.

I had to file my I-212 waiver at the field office who has jurisdiction where my removal happened, but it was a total waste of money and time. At first it was denied, and then the next time it never got adjudicated. After my petition was approved, I filed at the consulate and there they forwarded it to the DHS who has jurisdiction over that consulate and it was approved. Since CDJ has a DHS office, they accept waivers there and process it right there as well. If you file it to San Antonio field office, they will still forward it to CDJ for final adjudication. Why don't you try talking to a supervisor at CDJ or might as well contact the DHS directly in CDJ. Good luck."

[emt103c]

On the fact that they cannot change the ban date for an expedited removal...the short answer is yes..you get one ban for overstay and the one for an expedited removal is completely different and is for a different reason. They can run concurrently and end after the longest one is over.

The long answer is not important because it has to do with something before the year 2000, but there was a group of people who got their ban doubled because of some faulty legislation weird story.

[emt103c]

The second part of the quote doesn't sound quite accurate....the directions say to file it at the district office...it does take a long time, and it can be denied for little or no reason...in theory it would take longer than Oct 2008 for her 212 to be processed.

[JMRJ]

If your concern is that your stepdaughter will be falling under a different category after she's over 21 years old, then that's a different story. I think what you have to make sure is that a visa is available for her already anytime her ban is lifted. It doesn't matter when you can get an appointment.



True. Her age is *frozen* since the date of the I-130 filing. She still qualifies as a status of a child for immigration purposes.

For example, if U.S. citizen files petition for his/her 20 year-old child, if the case has not been complete when the child turns 21 years of year and this child maintains unmarried status, this child is still a child.
See Child Status Protection Act (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=676a279ec0000e5943332d5877f49 dc7)


I had to file my I-212 waiver at the field office who has jurisdiction where my removal happened, but it was a total waste of money and time. At first it was denied, and then the next time it never got adjudicated

This person must have appeared before the Immigration Judge and of course mistakenly filed the I-212 at the district or field office. The I-212 is an Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the United States After Deportation or Removal. An applicant who needs this form most likely needs to file I-601 to waive the reason of inadmissibility. These forms are filed together at the US consulate.


That means her ban will be lifted on October 7, 2008. Since your case is kept open, you should be able to get an appointment anytime she becomes eligible for a visa.


In my humble opinion, this is your less complicated choice. Once the 5 year bar is over, she can make an appointment and pick up her visa with no need of filing any waiver. Just make sure you stay in contact with CDJ before the 1 year mark is up following the visa interview so they can leave the case open.

[lopay]

The senator's office seems to think they can change her date of removal. she was paroled into the US because her mom got hit by a truck and was in the hospital. When she returned to Mexico, they would have executed her order of removal that she had if they had done their job. It's odd that the port director did not execute it in 2000 when they gave her permission to enter the country being that they would have looked at her file to see who she was, but that he did execute her order of removal three years later when her sister was paroled. If they had followed what the law told them to do, they would have executed her order of removal. By not doing so, they added three years to her time of inadmissibility. They failed to do their job. But it's really odd that they would execute both of their removals at the same time. The oldest was not paroled into the US. She was not anywhere near the boarder. It's almost like they can ignore someone's order of removal so they can add time of inadmissibility on their own. How is it that no one knew that she had an order of removal against her when they had to call Washington to get permission and the hospitals to make sure we were not lying. They truly messed up and that's why the senator's office is asking why they did not do their job and why they added three years of inadmissibility to her. The government knows that she returned to Mexico in 2000 because they are the ones who let her into the county. I'm not saying that they are going to do anything about it, but it would be the right thing to do.

No one who is working with me (ie senator's office) can understand why they executed the oldest's removal when she was not at the boarder, nor in the US. This is one of the problems with giving them the power without any checks. It would seem that they can execute someone's order of removal whenever they feel like it. They did with my stepdaughter. They had her at the boarder, they let her into the country, they know she left, but they did not do anything about the removal then three years later, she is nowhere near the boarder, they have no idea where she is, and they execute it. We can prove that she was not in the US. The government knows it. This is why we need checks and balances in government. They do what they want and NOONE can challenge them. I have no idea what they are going to do about the pressure the Senator is putting on them. It's not like we are just hoping they will give us a break. They messed up and we hope that they will admit to it. I really have no idea if they are going to, but in a lot of ways, I don't think they will. It's like someone could be in China, and some guy could see that they should have been removed years ago and say, well I guess we had better go ahead and remove her. This stuff really gets to me. Has anyone checked out what I am asking about my wife? http://immigrate2us.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6531

[lopay]

and my stepdaughter doesn't have an overstay, nor any time here illegally. She never had a visa, and everything happened while she was under 18, including the removal in 2003.

[lopay]

It's my understanding that the day after her ban is up, Oct 8th 2008 because her removal was Oct 7th 2007, she can be issued a visa, that we don't have to wait for them to say anything about the waiver if we get an appointment after the 7th.

Sorry for the many post.

[lopay]

and just to be sure it's understood, she was ordered removed in 1998. after that she had an order of removal. the government let her into the country in 2000 and knows that she left when the reason for her parole was done. Her order of removal was executed in 2003. The other person said that she was ordered removed in 2003 and that's not correct.

[emt103c]

The ban applies ONLY to time spent out of the country. The fact that they let her in, generally means nothing, so she was removed twice with two separate orders?

[lopay]

no, she was only removed once. They did not execute her order of removal in 2000. They didn't do anything to her. Timeline:
1998- Judge orders them removed by absentia. This put an order of removal out against them.
2000- Oldest stepdaughter is paroled into US. Leaves when she is done, but her order of removal is not executed
2003- younger stepdaughter is paroled into US for medical reasons. This time they execute the order of removal that both of my stepdaughters had against them, even though the oldest had not been paroled into the US the second time. She had been in Mexico since 2000. She doesn’t have two order of removals against her and she hasn't been order removed twice.

If a person is order removed, it's just like an arrest warrant, it's valid until it is acted upon or executed. She was order removed (just like an arrest warrant bing issued against her) in 1998. She went to the boarder in 2000. She said hi, I’m so and so, here is my Mexican passport to prove who I am, they looked up who she was, they called Washington to get permission, then let her in, and when she left, they did nothing about her order of removal. It would be the same as someone who has an arrest warrant against them walking into a police station and saying hi this is who I am, here is my identification, and I want to report a crime, then the officer taking the statement and letting the person just walk out of the station. The officer there would check to make sure this person is not lying about who they are and see that there is an arrest warrant out for them and arrest them.

The boarder patrol did what was right the second time. I'm not trying to contest the younger stepdaughter’s date of removal because they did their job. If they followed the same procedures the first time that they followed the second time, they would have executed my stepdaughter's removal in 2000.

The older stepdaughter has not been in or near the US since 2000 and the government knows it. We have all kinds of evidence to prove it too, like she school records from Mexico. They should have executed her removal in 2000 when they let her into the county, but they did not. When they called Washington, they should have said her name is such and such, and it should have popped up on the computer saying, there is an order of removal against her, and when she left, they should have put in the computer that she had been removed. Both were paroled into the US. Why was the second acted upon, but the first not? Why did they decide to execute her removal the second time but not the first? They messed up. They had no reason to execute her removal when they did. It should have been done in 2000.

[lopay]

I'm really starting to get the idea that it's not even worth fighting because of the amount of time that is left before the ban is up but here is an idea that I have:
Did the port director actually have the right to execute the oldest's order of removal if she wasn't around? I've been thinking about this and I guess it's an interesting idea. Like I've said, my oldest wasn't at or around the boarder when he executed her order of removal. So why did he do it? What if he had done the same thing in someone else’s case?

Scenario:

Two sisters are order removed by absentia- one returns to Mexico, the other doesn't. The one who did leave asks to be paroled or applies for a visa down the road. The government then knows that she is out of the county. What should they do? If the officer were to do as the port director did with my stepdaughter's case, he would execute both orders of removal. Then the one that had not left could have some serious problems up the road. If they were to get caught, how would the government look at her? Would they say that she was inadmissible forever because they would assume that she reentered without inspection due to the fact that her record indicates that she had already been removed once?

Wow, the more I think about this, the more I realize that the port director really did mess up. What if it had been someone else? I guess I can't believe that a port director can remove someone that is not in the US. They never told us anything like he was going to execute the removals. They must have found it after they let us in. So they would have had no idea where she was.

I really do think that they look at the record the second time, said well we messed up, and then decided to try to "fix" their mistake.

Am I completely wrong with my thoughts here?

The more I think about what the port director did, the more reckless it seems. How did he know that she was not still in the country? You could say that well he saw the earlier time when she was paroled but if that's the case then it shows that they do in fact run the person's name which leads back to the question of why they didn't execute her removal in 2000.

Does it make sense to anyone else how they did it?