reentry after deportation/removal, lifetime ban or not? help?

[lopay]

I'm kinda confused and hope someone can clarify this.

If a person is deported/removed, then reenters without inspection, is that not a life time ban?

212 a 9

C) Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations.-


(i) In general.-Any alien who-


(I) has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate period of more than 1 year, or


(II) has been ordered removed under section 235(b)(1) , section 240 , or any other provision of law, and who enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted is inadmissible.

I understand c i I and c i II to be independent of each other because of the "or".

"or any other provision of law": doesn't that basically mean that they don't care why you were deported/removed, only that you were deported/removed?

So it was my understanding that part one deals with people who EWI more than once. Aggregate period of time meaning the total time her in the states from more than EWI.

When I say EWI, I don't mean a catch and release, I mean a successful entry without getting caught. I guess an example of this would be someone who EWI'd for 6 months, went back to their home for 6 months, EWI'd again and stayed for 7 months. The total aggregated time would be more than a year.

But this would not apply to someone who had a successful EWI and never left, 212 a 9 b would apply to them.

Part two of 212 a 9 c deals with someone who has be deported/removed and enters or even attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted. I understood this to mean that if a person has been deported/ removed for any reason what so ever and after the deportation/removal reenters the country without being admitted (meaning going through a port and being inspected), they are inadmissible.

212 a 9 c

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien seeking admission more than 10 years after the date of the alien's last departure from the United States if, prior to the alien's re-embarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt to be readmitted from a foreign contiguous territory, 14a/ 6aa/ the Secretary of Homeland Security has consented to the alien's reapplying for admission.

This is why that I have been thinking that someone who EWI'd after being deported/removed had a lifetime ban and could not apply for a waiver until after 10 years.

I'm not trying to act like I'm Mr. know-it-all, I'm just confused. I'm not trying to say I'm right and your wrong to anyone, I just want to understand this.

Thank you in advance for any help.

[Laura]

I'm kinda confused and hope someone can clarify this.

If a person is deported/removed, then reenters without inspection, is that not a life time ban?

Yes, it is. But that deportation has to be an actual deportation or removal. If someone is entering the U.S. and is caught and released and then re-enters EWI that is not 9(c) because a catch and release is NOT a removal/deportation. There is some speculation about whether a person who attempts to enter the U.S. at a POE and is "denied" entry and has to be flown to their country is considered "removed" for this purpose. Like if you fly into the U.S. from India, are denied entry for whatever reason, sent back to India, then you fly to Canada two weeks later and then sneak across the border, that person might be 9(c), because what happened at the airport I think might be considered a removal even though they never made it out of the airport. Confusing....


212 a 9

C) Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations.-


(i) In general.-Any alien who-


(I) has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate period of more than 1 year, or


(II) has been ordered removed under section 235(b)(1) , section 240 , or any other provision of law, and who enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted is inadmissible.

I understand c i I and c i II to be independent of each other because of the "or".

Yes, two different situations. One is: John EWI in 1999 and stayed until 2001. Then he left for a month and EWI again later in 2001 and stayed until now. That's 9(c) under the (I) part.



"or any other provision of law": doesn't that basically mean that they don't care why you were deported/removed, only that you were deported/removed?


Definitely doesn't matter why a person was deported/removed. But this doesn't apply to someone who voluntarily departed for example, it refers to formal deportation.


So it was my understanding that part one deals with people who EWI more than once. Aggregate period of time meaning the total time her in the states from more than EWI.

When I say EWI, I don't mean a catch and release, I mean a successful entry without getting caught. I guess an example of this would be someone who EWI'd for 6 months, went back to their home for 6 months, EWI'd again and stayed for 7 months. The total aggregated time would be more than a year.


It's not as simple as EWI more than once. The scenario you just described. Let's say, John EWI Jan. 1 2006 and left July 1, 2006 (6 months unlawful presence), then leaves the U.S. on his own accord and then EWI again on Aug. 1... at this time he will not be 9(c) ineligible as long as he remains in the U.S., even if it's for 5 years, or as long as he doesn't exit and EWI again to be more precise. So, let's say John is in the U.S. from Aug. 1 until March 2007, then he leaves AGAIN (second exit after a period of 6 months unlawful presence plus ANOTHER 7 months unlawful presence) and then he EWIs a third time. Now on that third EWI, he is 9(c), because he previously had 13 months say of unlawful presence. So, you have to count up the unlawful presence that is accumulated, not just the EWIs. Does that make sense? Theoretically a person could EWI, stay a week, leave, EWI, stay a week, and on and on for let's say 20 weeks, as long as their total aggregate illegal presence in the U.S. was less than one year before their final EWI, they would be okay for the waiver.


But this would not apply to someone who had a successful EWI and never left, 212 a 9 b would apply to them.

Part two of 212 a 9 c deals with someone who has be deported/removed and enters or even attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted. I understood this to mean that if a person has been deported/ removed for any reason what so ever and after the deportation/removal reenters the country without being admitted (meaning going through a port and being inspected), they are inadmissible.

212 a 9 c

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien seeking admission more than 10 years after the date of the alien's last departure from the United States if, prior to the alien's re-embarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt to be readmitted from a foreign contiguous territory, 14a/ 6aa/ the Secretary of Homeland Security has consented to the alien's reapplying for admission.

This is why that I have been thinking that someone who EWI'd after being deported/removed had a lifetime ban and could not apply for a waiver until after 10 years.


Yes, is someone questioning this? Yes, that's correct, if a person is deported/removed (NOT voluntarily departed though - maybe that is the confusion) and then EWI again they will have a lifetime bar with no waiver for 10 years.


I'm not trying to act like I'm Mr. know-it-all, I'm just confused. I'm not trying to say I'm right and your wrong to anyone, I just want to understand this.

Thank you in advance for any help.

[lopay]

Yes, it is. But that deportation has to be an actual deportation or removal. If someone is entering the U.S. and is caught and released and then re-enters EWI that is not 9(c) because a catch and release is NOT a removal/deportation. There is some speculation about whether a person who attempts to enter the U.S. at a POE and is "denied" entry and has to be flown to their country is considered "removed" for this purpose. Like if you fly into the U.S. from India, are denied entry for whatever reason, sent back to India, then you fly to Canada two weeks later and then sneak across the border, that person might be 9(c), because what happened at the airport I think might be considered a removal even though they never made it out of the airport. Confusing....

I'm working right now, but I have read some information about this and will post it as soon as I can. I think that is a removal also, but I'll post what all I have read later.


It's not as simple as EWI more than once. The scenario you just described. Let's say, John EWI Jan. 1 2006 and left July 1, 2006 (6 months unlawful presence), then leaves the U.S. on his own accord and then EWI again on Aug. 1... at this time he will not be 9(c) ineligible as long as he remains in the U.S., even if it's for 5 years, or as long as he doesn't exit and EWI again to be more precise. So, let's say John is in the U.S. from Aug. 1 until March 2007, then he leaves AGAIN (second exit after a period of 6 months unlawful presence plus ANOTHER 7 months unlawful presence) and then he EWIs a third time. Now on that third EWI, he is 9(c), because he previously had 13 months say of unlawful presence. So, you have to count up the unlawful presence that is accumulated, not just the EWIs. Does that make sense? Theoretically a person could EWI, stay a week, leave, EWI, stay a week, and on and on for let's say 20 weeks, as long as their total aggregate illegal presence in the U.S. was less than one year before their final EWI, they would be okay for the waiver.

Yea that makes sense. I guess they don't count the time from the second EWI until he has left. I think it's kinda odd because it would seem that they could say the time is from two different periods of being here, fulfilling the "aggregate". I'm not questioning what you are saying, I just find it odd, but then again, I find everything about immigration "odd".



Yes, is someone questioning this? Yes, that's correct, if a person is deported/removed (NOT voluntarily departed though - maybe that is the confusion) and then EWI again they will have a lifetime bar with no waiver for 10 years.

There have been some threads where someone didn't know if there husband/wife had been deported.

Misantito's case (http://immigrate2us.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7065)

Mgarcia's case (http://immigrate2us.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6941)

MiSantito had asked what would happen if her husband’s case actually ended up being a deportation. I told her that would have been a lifetime ban because it would be a 212 a 9 c ii. I REALLY don't think that he was deported at all because it sounds like a textbook case of catch and release, but she had asked IF it were to turn out to be a deportation, so......

There is something really major missing with Mgarcia's case. She has an approved I-212. I for one really don't think that they would approve an I-212 if a deportation/removal never happened. One of the first things they have to check is if the I-212 is even needed by checking the person’s A-file to be sure that the wavier is even needed. Then the whole process would have to go through, filling out the I-212 application, the HSL letter, ect. My take was that if he had an I-212, it had to mean that he had a deportation/removal. If there is removal, he would have been removed then EWI'd, 212 a 9 c ii.

But her case is so weird that unless she comes back and explains some things, I don't think anyone here can help her. If everything she says is true, then there must be something REALLY special going on here. One, she is AOS-ing for an EWI, 2 there is a deportation/removal against him and he EWI'd after his removal, it should have been a lifetime ban according to 212 a 9 c ii (but will not know until she responds--- if the deportation/removal happened after he EWI'd then it does not count as 9 c ii- it’s possible that the I-212 could have been for an order to be removed)

I understand 100% that catch and release does not count as a removal. I have read somewhere that they are starting to expeditiously remove anyone they catch at the border as the law does allow for this, but I do not know how accurate it is, and how much they actually do this. I'll post my sources later. I agree that no one should just think that the catch and release was a removal, although it could be. I think if anyone thinks that they could have been removed, they should send in their fingerprints to the FBI.

I actually think that anyone who has been in the US at any point should send in their fingerprints to the FBI to know 100% what is on their file. The consulate is going to do, so it can’t hurt to know what they are going to find out. It would also give a person time to challenge anything that is not correct. If we had done this before we went to CDJ with my wife, it would have saved us a lot of trouble.

Thanks

[kitkat1]

I guess they don't count the time from the second EWI until he has left.

They DO count the time of illegal presence of the second EWI. That is the determining factor. The issue is not the illegal entry - it's about the accumulated presence unless someone has re-entered illegally after having accumulated 365 days of illegal presence.

If someone entered illegally on Jan. 1 and left on March 1, he has accumulated 3 months of illegal presence. NO ban. If he re-enters illegally on April 1 and leaves on June 30, he has accumulated an additional three months of illegal presence. Now he has accumulated less than 180 days of illegal presence total. NO Ban. He can go to a visa interview and not face a ban. No need for a waiver. He entered illegally twice - doesn't matter. He did not accumulate illegal presence.

Same scenario but he stays unti August 1. He now has accumulated more than 180 days of illegal presence. Three year ban.

Misantito's fiance's case is just like thousands of others. He attempted to enter and was caught. He tried again and he made it. His attempted entry does not impact him. He is only facing a ban because he has accumulated more than 180 days of illegal presence since 2004. The chances that he was deported are slim to none.

Mgarcia's case is strange - something major is missing from the story since a 212 waiver did not appear to be necessary yet it was submitted and approved. Chances are 99.9% that we do not have all of the details.

Expedited removal is common. If the border patrol believes that the person did not have an intent to deliberately commit fraud or if the violation is not serious, the person is very often allowed to withdraw their application for admission and depart the United States - this means they are not prohibited from applying for entry in the future. This ususually happens to people passing through a POE with a valid visa, but are found to have lied about their reason for entry i.e. saying they are visiting friends when they really have a USC fiance or spouse. Expedited removal means they are barred from re-entry for a period of five years.

I actually think that anyone who has been in the US at any point should send in their fingerprints to the FBI to know 100% what is on their file.

Always a smart thing to do. But even people who EWId and accumulated illegal presence will show a 100% clean record most of the time.

[lopay]

With the other cases, I was never implying that they would have received the lifetime ban because of the amount of time here, but because of a deportation.

Msantito had asked what would happen if her husbands capture at the border ended up being a deportation. If it was a deportation/removal, then he would have a lifetime ban because of 212 a 9 c i II, not i. But that is a HUGE if because as everyone has said, his case sounds like a catch and release and most of the time, catch and release doesn't count as a removal.

I wonder if Mgarica is going to come back. I'm would really like to know more about her case, and more importantly be sure that no one is giving her family a run for their time or money by promising them things that can never happen.

And if a person who has been ordered removed/deported is caught at the border and is fingerprinted, they get a lifetime ban, right? 9 c i II says "or attempts to reenter the US without admission".

So would it be correct to say that if anyone has been removed and EWIs successfully or get caught attempting to EWI, they would have a lifetime ban with hope for a waiver only after 10 years of being outside the US according to 212 a 9 c i II and 9 c i, right?

[kitkat1]

http://www.americanlaw.com/unlawfulmemo3.html

Section 212(a)(9)(A)(i) of the Act provides that aliens who have been ordered removed from the United States through expedited removal proceedings or removal proceedings initiated on the alien’s arrival in the United States and who have actually been removed (or departed after such an order) are inadmissible for 5 years.

Section 212(a)(9)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that aliens who have been otherwise ordered removed, ordered deported under sections 242 or 217 of the Act or ordered excluded under section 236 of the Act and who have actually been removed (or departed after such an order) are inadmissible for 10 years. Aliens who have been removed more than once are inadmissible for 20 years

http://www.americanlaw.com/1996law.html

Section 301 also creates INA §212(a)(9)(C) (http://www.americanlaw.com/exclud9A.html), which imposes a permanent bar to admission for aliens who were unlawfully present for an aggregate period of more than one year or who have been ordered removed, and who subsequently enter or attempt to enter the United States without being lawfully admitted.

http://www.shusterman.com/245aila2.html

A reference to "an order of removal" is deemed to include a reference to an "order of exclusion and deportation" or an "order of deportation" INA Section 309(d)(2). Therefore, when section 212(a)(9)(A) refers to departures while an order of removal is outstanding, it probably encompasses departures after exclusion or deportation orders as well.

[lopay]

http://www.americanlaw.com/unlawfulmemo3.html

Section 212(a)(9)(A)(i) of the Act provides that aliens who have been ordered removed from the United States through expedited removal proceedings or removal proceedings initiated on the alien’s arrival in the United States and who have actually been removed (or departed after such an order) are inadmissible for 5 years.

Section 212(a)(9)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that aliens who have been otherwise ordered removed, ordered deported under sections 242 or 217 of the Act or ordered excluded under section 236 of the Act and who have actually been removed (or departed after such an order) are inadmissible for 10 years. Aliens who have been removed more than once are inadmissible for 20 years

http://www.americanlaw.com/1996law.html

Section 301 also creates INA §212(a)(9)(C) (http://www.americanlaw.com/exclud9A.html), which imposes a permanent bar to admission for aliens who were unlawfully present for an aggregate period of more than one year or who have been ordered removed, and who subsequently enter or attempt to enter the United States without being lawfully admitted.

http://www.shusterman.com/245aila2.html

A reference to "an order of removal" is deemed to include a reference to an "order of exclusion and deportation" or an "order of deportation" INA Section 309(d)(2). Therefore, when section 212(a)(9)(A) refers to departures while an order of removal is outstanding, it probably encompasses departures after exclusion or deportation orders as well.



Right, that's what I have been saying.

"or who have been ordered removed, and who subsequently enter or attempt to enter the United States without being lawfully admitted."

Maybe your thinking that I was saying to the other people that their catch and release counted as a removal. In Msantito's case, she asked what would happen if they actually removed her husband when he got caught at the border.

She said that her husband attempted to enter and was caught. He then tried again and was successful. Her question was about the first time he tried to enter. If he had been removed the first time, his case would read like this:

2000 (or whenever it was): caught at border and expeditiously removed (this would fulfil the first part of the 9 c i II)
2001 (or whenever it was): reentered the US without being admitted (this would fulfill the second part of 9 c i II)

So he would have a lifetime ban because he would have been deported then reentered without having been admitted after his deportation. That's 9 C i II.

Also the two are independent of each other, I does not rely on II, nor does II rely on I.

However I am NOT saying that her husband has a lifetime ban because there is no reason to suspect that he was deported when he was caught. I was simply answering her question to what would happen if his first attempt had been a deportation.

[kitkat1]

Right. But the point is that people who are caught attempting to enter at the border of Mexico are pretty much never official removed or deported. They simply do not have the personnel to do that considering the number of people who EWId in the past. That's how the whole unofficial policy of catch and release started. So it's normally completely safe to assume that a person who was caught at the border was not officially removed or deported and will not be facing a lifetime ban for a subsequent successful entry. That's all we've been trying to say here - especially in regard to misantito's case.

[lopay]

Kitkat, I'm sorry if you ever thought I was trying to say other wise.

I understand 100% that getting caught at the border would count as a deportation or removal and I don't think I have ever said otherwise.

The only time an attempted entry (meaning they get caught at the border) can affect a person is if that they have been ordered removed before.

In MSantito's case, I was simply answering a question that she asked; I was never saying that was actually what she was facing.

I still hold my ground in Mgarcia's case, but you can't prove me wrong until she comes back :D (just joking by ALL means, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong here, but rather that people get the help the need.)

[Adriane]

Right. But the point is that people who are caught attempting to enter at the border of Mexico are pretty much never official removed or deported. They simply do not have the personnel to do that considering the number of people who EWId in the past. That's how the whole unofficial policy of catch and release started. So it's normally completely safe to assume that a person who was caught at the border was not officially removed or deported and will not be facing a lifetime ban for a subsequent successful entry. That's all we've been trying to say here - especially in regard to misantito's case.

The catch & releases can not be considered expedited removal because, as stated, expedited removal results in a 5 year ban. My husband had 3 'catch & releases' and was given a 3 year ban which we successfully got waived (after 2 years!) But they stated that he was only banned for 3 years after entered and staying for 11 months- had his catch & releases really been expedited removals and earned him a 5 year ban, he wouldn't have been told he'd be admissible after 3.......

I think the 'catch & releases' are actually denials of entry. The denial of entry (evben though technically you are on US soil) doesn't include any sort of removal/ deportation- just a 'no, you may not come in...'

[lopay]

"The Bush Administration is taking a an incremental approach to expanding
expedited removal. From April 1997, to November 2002, expedited removal onlyapplied to arriving aliens at ports of entry. In November 2002, the Administration expanded expedited removal to aliens arriving by sea who are not admitted or paroled. Subsequently, in August 2004, expedited removal was expanded to aliens who are present without being admitted or paroled, are encountered by an immigration officer within 100 air miles of the U.S. southwest land border, and can not establish to the satisfaction of the immigration officer that they have been physically present in the United States continuously for the 14-day period immediately preceding the date of encounter. This report will be updated."
source (http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P13.pdf)

"On June 10, 2000, Sharon McKnight, a United States citizen of Jamaican ethnicity, arrived at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport on a flight from Jamaica, where she had been visiting her sick grandfather. McKnight is 35 years old and has the mental capacity of a young child; her family members were concerned about her traveling by herself and were awaiting her arrival at the airport. When she did not appear several hours after her flight landed, they became concerned and began to make inquiries. They learned that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) had taken her into custody because they thought her passport was fake and that she was attempting to commit fraud. In an effort to persuade INS that they were mistaken, the family members secured a copy of Ms. McKnight's birth certificate, showing that she had been born in the United States, but INS was not swayed by the evidence. Ms. McKnight remained handcuffed and was left overnight in a room at the airport, with her legs shackled to a chair. She was not fed nor permitted to use the bathroom, and in the morning she was returned to Jamaica. Upon her arrival there, she was able to find her way to the home of a relative after baggage porters at the airport donated her bus fare.

Eight days later, with the assistance of New York Representative Michael Forbes, her status as a U.S. citizen was confirmed in a meeting with the U.S. Consul General in Jamaica and reviewed by State Department officials in Washington, D.C., and McKnight was permitted to return to the U.S. The INS apologized for its error. McKnight, who has stated that she was treated "like an animal," believes she will have nightmares the rest of her life as a result of what she suffered."

Source (http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter01/musalo.html)

"We are moving to end the old “catch and release” style of border enforcement, increasing removals by tens of thousands a year. We have expanded Expedited Removal along the entire southwest border. We are hiring and training hundreds of new border patrol agents. We are deploying new technologies, from advanced telecommunications to unmanned aerial vehicles. And we are finding new ways to work with state and local law enforcement to deal with illegal immigration and the ills that it brings."
Michael Chertoff


that's if you actually believe anything he says.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1634&wit_id=66

[Laura]

I think that's true. I think now, and I can't really confirm this, but I have heard stories, that people aren't getting caught and released so much, but actually being detained and removed...

Lopay, just to clarify - IF in Misantito's case, her husband was actually formally removed at the border (again, that's almost certainly not what happened - so slim a chance, like Adriane and KK said, it's not really worth discussing), YES, he would have a lifetime bar with no waiver for 10 years. That is absolutely true, but the number of people on this forum and generally filing through CDJ who EWI say, before 2002, were caught and released, then EWI a second or third time and made it in without accumulating illegal presence - AND have been able to file waivers without any issue in CDJ leads us to understand that there is almost never any issue with "catch and releases."

[lopay]

KitKat.....I know that the I-212 is for deportations and removals, but I was just wondering where that fits in and when would it be filed? If we went ahead and done the I-129 and then instead of a catch and release it ended up being a deportation, how would it affect our process? When would the 212 be filed? How long would it take? Any other info. would be appreciated also.

misantito, your fiance had one attempted entry (which may or may not have been deportation but sounds like it clearly was not) and one successful entry a few days later in 04, correct? That means he will need a waiver for illegal presence once denied at his interview. So either way, you are going to need a waiver. It's EXTREMELY unlikely that what you described was a deportation. If, in the end, he finds out it was, you will simply need a second waiver. Send the FBI fingerprint request. Chances are it will show nothing. Send the I-129F either way now to get the ball rolling. In the end, you will either be dealing with one waiver or two.

He wasn't deported after having accumulated illegal presence. IF he was deported (which chances are 99.9% he was not), it was upon his FIRST entry. He was successful upon his SECOND entry. Therefore there is no permanent ban. Currently he needs a 601 to forgive his illegal presence accumulated since 2004. If there was a deportation, he will also need a 212. But again, extremely unlikely that this is the case.

Also, it's not simply an illegal entry after deportation that triggers the permanent ban. It's an attempted entry or successful entry AFTER having accumulated more than 365 days of illegal presence or having been removed. Your wife's case appears to be due to having departed the United States while her order of removal was outstanding.

I just got off the phone with Ana Schwartz and she told me that both her and Laurel felt that it was a catch and release for my fiance, but to make sure he should do a fingerprint check.

kitkat, someone who EWIs after being deported can only apply for a waiver after ten years. It the situation my wife is in. They say she EWI'd after she was deported. 212 a9cii

I'm not saying her case is a deportation as it really does not sound like it at all. Her case sounds like it was a simple catch and release.

Like I said, she asked what would happen if her case ended up being a deportation. I answered and was told I was wrong. When someone asks a question like this, they need to know what they could be facing. Laurel and Ana recommended that they have the fingerprints checked to be sure that it wasn't a removal. Msantito came back and asked, "well hey, if it does come back a deportation, then what happens next." As Laura just said, her husband would be facing a permanent ban for which he can apply for a waiver only have 10 years of being outside of the US. I have never said that her case sounded like she was removed. I don't think he was removed. I think the fingerprints are going to come back just fine. I feel confident that she is not going to have any problems at all, so is it worth discussing, well, this is a forum, and she did ask what would happen if it came back a removal, so I think her question should be answered straight forward. Do I think she should start preparing herself for a permanent ban? Not at all. So I agree that it’s not worth discussing after her question has been answered correctly.

At first I thought maybe there was a difference between a removal and a deportation. I looked around and found that the IIRIRA of 1996 changed the wording of a deportation to a removal. I'm still not 100% about this, but I can't find anything in the current INA that says a person shall be deported. My guess is that they changed the wording to be political correct. I'm not saying that I am 100% correct, so if anyone knows, let me know.

[fanygirl]

Hi everybody. This is my situation exactly and a little more, man if only I knew that this would be, it is so not worth the trouble. But you have already started to make life because of misleading information that continues to give you false hope when you finally get to the truth you are so far alone and don't know what to do.
Anyways I had some email consultation with L.Scott. and I didn't 100% understand her reply. Here we go.

1. Dec. 1996 tried to come to US with fraud docs. got busted(taken of line. they could smell the nervousness on me a mile away:shy:). Put on a flight the next morning returned home.

2. Sept. 1999 tried again with the same means made it through.

3. Sept. 2002 got married. On so call lawyer advise filed 130, work permit, AOS. bad bad move:bang:

4. Oct. 2002 husband went out of country met in accident died.

5. Met boyfriend 2004, married 2005.

6. Got letter from UCIS that all petitions are denied because they sent notice for first husband to come in for 130 interview (never recieved any such letter) and no one showed.

7. Got a real lawyer this time. Sent in letter with copy of death certificate. and Apr. 2006 sent for FOIA (almost 2 yrs no ans. yet)

8. May 2006 filed 130 because of all the buss some big change will be coming (yeh right:rolleyes:)

9. June 2006 130 approved, (letter states because or ineligiablity to ajust based on info on petition(EWI) approval letter sent to NVC.

MY CONSULTATION WITH L.SCOTT.

I explain my situation and her response was:
First to comment while people who attempt to enter the US after an overstay are often turnrd away at the airport without a formal deportation, those who attempt to enter with document fraud and are caught are typically formally deported. Your deportation was prior to 1997, But you subsequent reentry was after 1997 so INA 212(a)(9)(c) may enter without being admitted. There is no double that entering at an inspection point with fraud is not a"lawful admission". but some local offices have taken the position that it is not.
Regardless of weather you canavoid INA 212(a)(9)(c) and problem under245(a) you still have a misrepresentation problem. You've committed mis-rep twice. If you attempt to ajust through your spouse there will be no relief for the mis-rep and you will have to file a I-601 either locally if your local office say you were admitted or at your home consulate if they say you were not.

Your AOS through your first husband is now not relevant.
Since you started a new case.

If they pass a new guess worker law, there may be some relief for your mis-rep. If you do not qualify for guest worker, hten regardless of weather the law passes or not you will need an I-601 waiver for the fraud.

Both a refusal of entry and a deportation would be on FOIA, but only adeportation would be on a FBI report.

Q. want you guys think? will the fact that the first entry try and possible deportation happened in 1996 will make a difference.
Q. What law was past in 1997?
Q. Or do I already have a life ban and don't know it.

getting tierd, don't want to keep chasing an impossible dream.

[Laura]

Hi Fany... I'm still confused about your situation. I think you need to do the FBI or FOIA report and see if there is a deportation.

Either way though, from what Laurel said it sound like if it was a deportation that happened before 1997 and then you re-entered after it still might be 9(c) - lifetime bar with no waiver available for 10 years.

What country are you from?

Either way this is going to be a long, uphill battle, as you might have the 9(c) bar and even if you do not and can still immediately file a waiver you'll need to overcome two misrepresentations in the waiver - meaning, you'll need some really strong hardships, and a lot will depend on what Consulate you file through.

[fanygirl]

Thanks laurafern for your response. I'm from Jamaica. and from I have been reading these post I have never seen were anyone has gotten a waiver, from that side of the caribbean. I already filed the FOIA but still waiting on the result. Doesn't sound good though, because I was photographed and finger printed so I don't think they would go through all that if it was a formal deport.
My lawyer said to wait and see what they have on the FOIA, but given the worst case senario, It seems really hopeless. I don't know if you or anyone know of any case simular to mine send me link please if you find any.
laurafen I see you on L.Scott wednesday chat a lot. I can never make it on time to join. So if you have any extra time post a summary of my case and ask L.Scott what the worst case sinario might be. Thanks you've been great.

[emt103c]

First I agree with Laurel Scott--of course. I don't think there is any way that you were not formally deported the first time, as they discovered your Misrep AND made you fly out the next day, and thus the 9(c) which means no waiver until you've been out of country for 10 years + a probable MisRep charge which requires a 601 anyway.

I did a consult with Laurel, she will usually answer any questions you have about her first email consult in a second email. . .she is VERY good about that.

She is saying that once you remarried and re-filed your old case no longer matters and that you would probably not have been able to adjust that way in country due to the MisRep/Previous Deportation.

She does however say that possibly the local office could make a different judgement on the situation and allow you to file the 601 in country and it will depend on the interview. I think she was just trying to prepare you for both scenarios.

[fanygirl]

you guys been great. My lawyer think I should take the wait and see approach about what comes up in a new law, But what new law :rolleyes: the only law I see is crack downs, thats my other fear, that I will be home and one day ICE gonna show up at my door. I try to talk to my husband about the possibility of going home and trying from home everytime I mention it he freaks out and I guess he is right because now I'm looking at a 100% guarantee 10 years ban with the possible which doesn't even look like a 10% chance of getting a waiver. I haven't even seen on this sight that anybody has gotten a waiver from my side of the caribbean. Its a tough decision:sad:
I have already worried myself into having panic attacks so lets see whats next. But this site been great. its good support especially when you feel like no one really understands.