GC Holder being denied entry? Semi-complicated situation

[canuck2011]

I'm really hoping someone can provide some advice for me. I'm pretty desperate and very stressed. I have a bit of a situation and am trying to find out if my mom being banned from the US and some statements she made would have an affect on my own admission to the US and future consequences for her.

My situation: I am a Canadian citizen living in the US with a conditional GC good for two years, I received it less than a year ago.

My mom's situation: She only has Canadian citizenship. She was refused entry and banned from coming when she flew by herself into San Francisco because she overstayed a previous visit by more than 12 months. She said she didn't know that she overstayed since there was no I-94 or date stamped onto her passport but they said ignorance is not an excuse. They questioned her for several hours and even quizzed her about my dad's previous visits to the US and inquired about where I was. I think she got really scared, she said the immigration agents were very threatening and kept on telling her that they will throw her in jail. She wasn't thinking straight and when they asked her about where I was, she told them that I was in England even though I am in the US.

I am suppose to go on a vacation to Mexico next week but now I'm worried that if I go in and out of the country for a week it may have some sort of negative consequence. Am I now red flagged and would there be a chance, even a remote chance that I may be denied entry or anything else because of my mom's statements about me being in England? Since my mom told them I am in England, they will clearly know that is not the case when I return from Mexico, also I'm just worried this may have a further consequence for her if we try to apply for a waiver of her ban and later apply for a GC when I become an US citizen.

 

[polar]

what your mom has done or said to immigration authorities has no bearing on your immigration status. you have your conditional permanent residency and YOU havent done anything wrong. you are free to enjoy your vacation as much as you want. you have nothing to worry about as far as your situation is concerned. your mom, however, will be banned from coming to the US for 10 years.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

your mom, however, will be banned from coming to the US for 10 years.

Not true. No I-94, no illegal presence. No illegal presence, no 3/10-year bars.

The question is whether she was placed into expedited removal or simply denied entry.

 

[BigJoe5]

Not true. No I-94, no illegal presence. No illegal presence, no 3/10-year bars.

The question is whether she was placed into expedited removal or simply denied entry.

OP has described an encounter between his mom and CBP where she was informed of her problem and refused entry. Why on earth would you suggest there no ban? How about we ask OP if mom got something in writing from that encounter and what it says? Canadians HAD (past tense) a pretty much "free ride" for a long time but things have changed.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

OP has described an encounter between his mom and CBP where she was informed of her problem and refused entry. Why on earth would you suggest there no ban?

There may be a five year re-entry bar if she was put into expedited removal, but the 3 and 10 year bars are non-discretionary and depend entirely on illegal presence. Canadians legally admitted without an I-94 cannot accumulate illegal presence, much like an F-1 D/S entry.

Canadians HAD (past tense) a pretty much "free ride" for a long time but things have changed.

The rules on illegal presence haven't changed.

 

[Jackolantern]

OP has described an encounter between his mom and CBP where she was informed of her problem and refused entry. Why on earth would you suggest there no ban?

Even if there is no statutory ban applicable, a discretionary refusal of entry as a nonimmigrant is still likely after a significant period of being out of status. Ban or no ban, she will probably be unable to reenter the US as a nonimmigrant for several years.

 

[polar]

Not true. No I-94, no illegal presence. No illegal presence, no 3/10-year bars.

The question is whether she was placed into expedited removal or simply denied entry.

not having your i-94 stamped is not an excuse or gives you the right to legally stay in the US beyond the allowed time. OP's mom overstayed for over 12 months, which the immigration agent seemed to have on record in denying her entry. her 10 year bar has already been triggered.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

not having your i-94 stamped

You don't understand. There was no I-94, therefore no illegal presence.

 

[Jackolantern]

not having your i-94 stamped is not an excuse or gives you the right to legally stay in the US beyond the allowed time. OP's mom overstayed for over 12 months, which the immigration agent seemed to have on record in denying her entry. her 10 year bar has already been triggered.

There is a subtle distinction between "out of status" and "unlawful presence". The OP's mom was out of status, but not unlawfully present.

Out of status without unlawful presence is not grounds for denying a green card, but it is grounds for denying entry as a nonimmigrant.

 

[polar]

You don't understand. There was no I-94, therefore no illegal presence.

no, you dont understand. the OP specifically said the mother overstayed for 12 months. whether she was issued i-94 or not (she shouldve...and not being issued one is not a valid excuse to stay in the country illegally) is a separate issue as far as her length of illegal presence is concerned. she had a certain period of time to be in the US based on whatever visa she was given to enter to beginw ith and she overstayed for 12 months according to the immigration authorities. based on what the OP is saying, the 10 year bar is effective.

 

[polar]

There is a subtle distinction between "out of status" and "unlawful presence". The OP's mom was out of status, but not unlawfully present.

Out of status without unlawful presence is not grounds for denying a green card, but it is grounds for denying entry as a nonimmigrant.

i'll stick with what OP is saying. he stated that the immigration authority denied her entry because of her previous 12 month overstay. 12 month overstay of a nonimmigrant visa automatically means she was "out of status" and triggered "unlawful presence" starting from the date she was suppose to depart the country. they go hand in hand. you cant be out of status yet have lawful presence or vice versa.

 

[Jackolantern]

i'll stick with what OP is saying. he stated that the immigration authority denied her entry because of her previous 12 month overstay. 12 month overstay of a nonimmigrant visa automatically means she was "out of status" and triggered "unlawful presence" starting from the date she was suppose to depart the country. they go hand in hand. you cant be out of status yet have lawful presence or vice versa.

She didn't enter with a nonimmigrant visa, she only used her Canadian passport. And she didn't get an I-94 with a specific end date. It may seem contradictory and confusing, but people in her situation don't automatically become unlawfully present when their legal status has ended.

See http://www.laborimmigration.com/2009/05/when-does-unlawful-presence-start/

 

[polar]

She didn't enter with a nonimmigrant visa, she only used her Canadian passport. And she didn't get an I-94 with a specific end date. It may seem contradictory and confusing, but people in her situation don't automatically become unlawfully present when their legal status has ended.

See http://www.laborimmigration.com/2009/05/when-does-unlawful-presence-start/

hm i guess different set of rules apply to canadians. didnt know canadians can just come and go with just passport without visas.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

no, you dont understand. the OP specifically said the mother overstayed for 12 months. whether she was issued i-94 or not

LOL. You cannot overstay without an I-94. She may call it an overstay, but the law does not and that is all that matters.

based on what the OP is saying, the 10 year bar is effective.

Last time I checked, the OP wasn't in CBP or an immigration judge.

Seriously, you do not understand illegal presence and how the unique exemptions granted to Canadian citizens affect them.

 

[polar]

LOL. You cannot overstay without an I-94. She may call it an overstay, but the law does not and that is all that matters.



Last time I checked, the OP wasn't in CBP or an immigration judge.

Seriously, you do not understand illegal presence and how the unique exemptions granted to Canadian citizens affect them.

wrong. you can enlighten me on the canadian exemption but whether or not she entered with a visa as a canadian does not preclude her from the fact that she has a finite amount of time to stay in the country legally. she obviously overstayed her allowed length of stay and subsequently was denied entry at the POE. past history of illegal presence = denied entry. so i guess what youa re sayin is that his mother shouldve been allowed in despite the immigration authority telling her she overstayed for 12 months. i guess those immigration authorities dont know crap, huh? LOL

 

[TheRealCanadian]

so i guess what youa re sayin is that his mother shouldve been allowed in despite the immigration authority telling her she overstayed for 12 months.

I am merely stating that she is not subject to the 3/10 year bars.

 

[Jackolantern]

so i guess what youa re sayin is that his mother shouldve been allowed in despite the immigration authority telling her she overstayed for 12 months. i guess those immigration authorities dont know crap, huh? LOL

No, what we're saying is that she did not have the mandatory 3 or 10 year ban. She was refused entry on a discretionary basis because she was out of status for a long time, and will probably continue to be refused entry as a nonimmigrant for years.

But because her "out of status" time did not count as "unlawful presence", she would still be eligible to obtain and enter with an immigrant visa in the near future if she qualified through an approved immigrant petition.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

But because her "out of status" time did not count as "unlawful presence", she would still be eligible to obtain and enter with an immigrant visa in the near future if she qualified through an approved immigrant petition.

Exactly. That is an important distinction. It's also important whether she was merely refused entry or placed in expedited removal, since that would include a 5-year bar.

 

[polar]

well i wont attempt to take a guess at what the mother's legal status was or the circumstance surrounding her previous arrival/departure because OP hasnt given us more info. but based on what was purely said by the CBP according to OP, it seems like his mother accrued over 12 months of unlawful presence based on whatever evidence the CBP had at the time to make that statement. at which point, the 10 year bar applies automatically. if there is a canadian loophole around this that i dont know about, more power to the mother.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

if there is a canadian loophole around this that i dont know about

Yes, there is. Please stop - you don't understand how the law applies in this case, by your own admission.