Which waiver is harder to get approved (CIMT or ILLEGAL PRESENCE)

[xclent]

I think every one can reply to this question. This thread would be very helpful to all the people for comparison

Which waiver is harder to get approved based on hardship to spouse?
(Applying for waiver in US)

CASE 1:
======
Entered US legally with some form of VISA, then become illegal, US citizen wife, no children, no criminal record, still is US

CASE 2:
======
Entered US legally with some form of visa, still in status, US citizen wife, no children, but have CIMT (Crime involving moral turpitude after entering US, within 5 years of admission), CIMT occured more than 5 years ago, still in US

[kitkat1]

Criminal charges are undoubtedly more difficult and complicated. But I can't quite see where a comparison would be useful - either a person was illegally present or they weren't. Either a person has a CIMT or they don't. It's not like you can choose the reason why you have to submit a waiver - know what I mean?

Additionally, waivers adjudicated in the US are different than waivers adjudicated at overseas consulates - there's no "reputation" to go by generally speaking because there are many different office locations where they could be processed, depending on the circumstances.

[xclent]

in CASE1, person is illegal but in CASE 2, person is legal (in STATUS) but with CIMT.

Both cases require I-601 for AOS (US CITIZEN SPOUSE)

[pen1137]

how did case #1 become illegal?

[rg8333]

let me get this stare i have to get the waiver form approved first and then the hardship letter also? confused help

[pen1137]

oh, and did the cimt occur in the US in both circumstances?

[pen1137]

rg, the waiver and hsl are submitted and decided on together.

[kitkat1]

Right - but in BOTH cases this person has a bar to adjusting status and go through the waiver process.

Someone with illegal presence doesn't have the opportunity to adjust their status in the US. So some might say that makes illegal presence a more difficult situation overall. But, depending on which consulate, it's not horribly difficult to overcome because it doesn't directly relate to the person's "moral character" in the eyes of USCIS (since people can end up with illegal presence due to a variety of circumstances).

A CIMT directly relates a person's "moral character" in the eyes of USCIS - that's why they separate different types of criminal charges. Since this is something USCIS cares about a great deal and it's harder to overcome.

Again, I personally can't see where a comparison would be useful -- it's not as if applicants get to choose which "route" they are going to go with a waiver i.e. one for illegal presence or one for CIMT so which one is easier is of no bearing.

[xclent]

CASE 1: over stayed, NO CIMT

CASE 2: Maintaining status but have CIMT which occured in US (within 5 years of admission)

[kitkat1]

oh, and did the cimt occur in the US in both circumstances?

He doesn't appear to be asking about a CIMT with illegal presence or without. If I understand it, he's comparing apples to oranges - waiver for CIMT but legally present or waiver for illegal presence but no CIMT.

Why would it matter? I don't get the reason behind the questions.