Visa Petitioner....

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

I have asked this question of a couple of our old timers, but wanted to get other members opinions on the topic. For these questions, it's assumed that the marriage-based Visa Petitioner is a US Citizen.

Question?

The USCIS carefully publishes the reasons by which a Beneficiary could be denied a marriage based Visa. Some of the reasons the Beneficiary would be denied are:

1. HIV positive
2. Previous Visa violation (like an overstay)
3. Committed a crime of moral turpitude
4. Convicted for prostitution....
5. Mental health history

...and a few others....

While there is a list for the Beneficiary, there appears to be NO published information that stipulates any reason whatsoever that a US Citizen would be denied a marriage based Visa for having any of these same things in their history. In other words an American Citizen with a criminal history, previous incarceration, convicted felon, HIV positive, Mental Health history, etc. Now, of course if the US Citizen is fleeing an active warrant, or otherwise wanted by US authorities they will probably get a knock on the door.

Has anyone seen or experienced otherwise?

[warpedbored]

I have asked this question of a couple of our old timers, but wanted to get other members opinions on the topic. For these questions, it's assumed that the marriage-based Visa Petitioner is a US Citizen.

 

Question?

 

The USCIS carefully publishes the reasons by which a Beneficiary could be denied a marriage based Visa. Some of the reasons the Beneficiary would be denied are:

 

1. HIV positive

2. Previous Visa violation (like an overstay)

3. Committed a crime of moral turpitude

4. Convicted for prostitution....

5. Mental health history

 

...and a few others....

 

While there is a list for the Beneficiary, there appears to be NO published information that stipulates any reason whatsoever that a US Citizen would be denied a marriage based Visa for having any of these same things in their history. In other words an American Citizen with a criminal history, previous incarceration, convicted felon, HIV positive, Mental Health history, etc. Now, of course if the US Citizen is fleeing an active warrant, or otherwise wanted by US authorities they will probably get a knock on the door.

 

Has anyone seen or experienced otherwise?

156379[/snapback]

I have never researched the subject but I don't believe there is any such restrictions. Harold Baird Who sadly was once a member of this site had a previous conviction for child molestation yet he was allowed to sponsor a Chinese woman and her little girl whom he promply molested once they were here. The woman was never even informed of his past criminal history. I am not saying that ex cons should not be allowed to marry women from another country, after all they can marry anyone here who would have them, but there should at the very least some mechanism in place to inform the benificiary of such previous convictions. These are a matter fo public record so no privacy violations are in effect.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

I have never researched the subject but I don't believe there is any such restrictions.  Harold Baird Who sadly was once a member of this site had a previous conviction for child molestation yet he was allowed to sponsor a Chinese woman and her little girl whom he promply molested once they were here.

156383[/snapback]

I've heard of this VERY sad story from other members.

 

see also...

http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/4080556/detail.html

 

It's interesting that there are so many restrictions for the immigrant but NONE for the US citizen? Could this be right? Is it a constitutional thing?

Edited September 23, 2005 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[warpedbored]

The woman, Jany is a member of this site now. We pulled together as a group and raised some 2400 dollars to help her and her daughter get on their feet. We haven't heard from her for some time but last track I had she was doing fairly well. Here is an update from a websearch on Harold. from last may.

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050515/FP_004.htm

[tucsonjim]

The woman, Jany is a member of this site now.  We pulled together as a group and raised some 2400 dollars to help her and her daughter get on their feet.  We haven't heard from her for some time but last track I had she was doing fairly well.  Here is an update from a websearch on Harold. from last may.

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050515/FP_004.htm

156388[/snapback]

Carl, this is really disturbing to hear about a horrible story like this!! It sure makes me wonder what the heck the infamous "FBI Name Check" is really checking! This is bizarre and very sad!! Seems a case like this should have triggered changes in the visa process, but apparantly that didn't happen. It's not clear to me that INS or USCIS (Homeland Security) would even be aware that something like this happened, related to immigration. Nothing in the article mentioned anything about the fact he molested the daughter of his new Chinese wife. It's generally pretty easy to identify sex offenders, since they are made very public, so people are aware if they are living close by, so it shouldn't hard for the name check process to look for this in the petitioner's history. To me, sex offenses of most types should be grounds for automatic denial of K-1/K-2's at least, no if's and's or but's!!

 

Seems like a group like this should proactively inform and lobby USCIS to make changes, based on a case like this that we all feel bad about. Maybe that happened to no avail... don't know...

 

It's great to hear that the CFL members rallied to help Jany and her child out!! That says alot for the type of folks that are involved here!! I'm proud to be a member of this group.

[Trigg]

The woman, Jany is a member of this site now.  We pulled together as a group and raised some 2400 dollars to help her and her daughter get on their feet.  We haven't heard from her for some time but last track I had she was doing fairly well.  Here is an update from a websearch on Harold. from last may.

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20050515/FP_004.htm

156388[/snapback]

Actualy Carl make that closer to 3,000. I did a little fund raising after we all did. She emails form time to time and at last report is still in the USA and her and her daughter are doing well.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Well, again....the story is simply appalling and thankfully that sick bastard got his just reward. It's indeed unfortuanate that it happened. I don't really want to turn this into a sick bastard bashing thread though.

 

Back to my original point. Does anyone have, or has anyone seen whether there is a list of criteria by which an American Citizen would be denied a Visa because of their own behavior or history?

 

I think this question is something that walks the fence with ACLU, DHS, and the US Constitution.

[Randy W]

. . .

 

I think this question is something that walks the fence with ACLU, DHS, and the US Constitution.

156411[/snapback]

 

 

Convicted felons lose their right to vote - their right to mail-order molestation victims is certainly not protected by the constitution.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Convicted felons lose their right to vote - their right to mail-order molestation victims is certainly not protected by the constitution.

156416[/snapback]

 

Okay, hold on.... I do appreciate the quips......

 

I really do want to re-direct and steer this back to my original question.

[frank1538]

Here's my two cents. Unless there is another statute out there that specifically prohibits a USC from petitioning USCIS for a visa, I don't see how or why any of the items Jesse listed, in and of themselves, would prevent approval of the I-129F petition. The statutes are very specific about the requirements:

 

1. The beneficiary is the fiancee or fiance (evidence of intent) of...

2. A citizen of the US (proof of citizenship).

3. The beneficiary seeks to enter solely to conclude a valid marriage...

4. With the petitioner within 90 days.

5. The petitioner and beneficiary have met in person within 2 years before the date of the filing of the petition... and

6. Have a bona fide intent to marry... and

7. Are legally able to conclude the marriage.

 

The statutes also say that if the requirements are met, the petition shall be approved.

 

Having said this, I can certainly see how a USC's conviction, say for smuggling illegal aliens into the country, would bear on his "bona fide intent to marry". I could see how a USC's conviction on a pimping/prostitution charge would bear on "bona fide intent to marry." I could see how someone's mental condition that severely curtails mental functions might bear on the USC's ability to legally conclude a marriage. I could see how a previous conviction for visa fraud would bear on "bona fide intent".

 

By the same token, I don't see how a conviction for auto theft would bear on the requirements. I don't see how a drug or traffic violation would necessarily bear on the requirements. And, I guess that a child molester's conviction doesn't necessarily bear on the requirements either.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Agreed Frank,

 

very good post and observation. It's very interesting that finding case law on such a topic is very difficult. Now, I'm not an attorney, but am very curious about immigration because I'm right in the midst of it, and like all of us will be for sometime.

 

You would indeed think if the US Citizen had a history of travel to unfriendly countries, talking to known terrorists, former convictions of drug and human trafficking, that they would indeed be excluded....

 

..with that said, I have not seen anything that would indeed preclude them if they have served their time and fulfilled their "debt" to society. There must be something out there on this. A case argued somewhere....

[david_dawei]

I have interpreted the bona-fide marriage similarly... as the USC's part in a 'sham marriage' (ie: being paid) or someone with an undesireable background that the NVC Security check surfaces.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

I have interpreted the bona-fide marriage similarly... as the USC's part in a 'sham marriage' (ie: being paid) or someone with an undesireable background that the NVC Security check surfaces.

156423[/snapback]

As Frank posted...

 

1. The beneficiary is the fiancee or fiance (evidence of intent) of...

2. A citizen of the US (proof of citizenship).

3. The beneficiary seeks to enter solely to conclude a valid marriage...

4. With the petitioner within 90 days.

5. The petitioner and beneficiary have met in person within 2 years before the date of the filing of the petition... and

6. Have a bona fide intent to marry... and

7. Are legally able to conclude the marriage.

 

I intrepret this as the intent to have a bonafide marriage and the language was written to prevent the "sham" marriage.

 

It's unlikely that one could be ruled as not having the intent to marry when they have met all the criteria. Unless an "undesireable" background is explained by case or documented law there is no way that one can determine "legally" that there is not a bonafide intent.

Edited September 23, 2005 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

I have interpreted the bona-fide marriage similarly... as the USC's part in a 'sham marriage' (ie: being paid) or someone with an undesireable background that the NVC Security check surfaces.

156423[/snapback]

As Frank posted...

 

1. The beneficiary is the fiancee or fiance (evidence of intent) of...

2. A citizen of the US (proof of citizenship).

3. The beneficiary seeks to enter solely to conclude a valid marriage...

4. With the petitioner within 90 days.

5. The petitioner and beneficiary have met in person within 2 years before the date of the filing of the petition... and

6. Have a bona fide intent to marry... and

7. Are legally able to conclude the marriage.

 

I intrepret this as the intent to have a bonafide marriage and the language was written to prevent the "sham" marriage.

 

It's unlikely that one could be ruled as not having the intent to marry when they have met all the criteria. Unless an "undesireable" background is explained by case or documented law there is no way that one can determine "legally" that there is not a bonafide intent.

156426[/snapback]

Once at the interview, the VO appears to have authority to determine the relationship as bonefide or not... I don't think he'll pull out a law book to prove his 'case'...

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

Once at the interview, the VO appears to have authority to determine the relationship as bonefide or not...  I don't think he'll pull out a law book to prove his 'case'...

156434[/snapback]

Of course David. Surely. Again, because there is so little on the topic is why I posted here.