Previously applied for citizenship

[molnoskey]

My dad applied for citizenship back in 1991 and lied about having committed a crime. Would reapplying 17 years later affect his application?

 

[Bobsmyth]

Not if he has kept his record clean since then. Also, it depends what crime he lied about. If it was murder, then he would be barred for life (and have been deported by now).

 

[Jackolantern]

My dad applied for citizenship back in 1991 and lied about having committed a crime. Would reapplying 17 years later affect his application?

Depending on the crime, he could get deported now even though he wasn't deported in 1991. In 1996 they retroactively reclassified some crimes to make them deportable offenses. So applying now could bring that old crime to their attention and make them realize it is now deportable under the 1996 law, and they'll deport him.

Did INS discover the lie when he applied in 1991? If they already know about the lie and the crime is not of a type that is now classified as deportable, he may be able to apply for citizenship successfully now. But if they still don't know about the crime, he's risking deportation if he applies now. If he doesn't mention the crime this time, he would be lying again, and they could deport him for the lying and/or the crime; if he tells the truth now and mentions the crime, they could look back on the original application and recognize that he lied in the past, which could lead to a denial and/or deportation.

He should consult a lawyer before applying.

 

[MartinAub]

Ha,

that's the seriously un-funny part about US laws: "retroactively"

I am not sure where else in the world that is possible, but I for one think that's absolutely a concept for totally nuts people.

 

[Jackolantern]

Ha,

that's the seriously un-funny part about US laws: "retroactively"

I am not sure where else in the world that is possible, but I for one think that's absolutely a concept for totally nuts people.

Any law that would retroactively increase the penalty of a crime would get struck down as unconstitutional if it applied to citizens.

But the 1996 law still stands because it's restricted to noncitizens.

 

[MartinAub]

Jack,

it's not my point - anything that changes the law retroactively (pardons as exceptions, but that's not a change of law) is totally out of whack.

We strung up Saddam - sorry - yeah, guess what, no WMD's - real sorry, shouldn't invade, can we have the heartmachine? What? Doesn't work? So, sorry - would like to have you back, but alas - you are toast.

Also very sorry for the 6 mil jews and well, lets bleed the Germans for the rest of their bare existance to pay - doesn't matter if those currently alive had anything to do with it.

YOU DO NOT CHANGE LAWS RETROACTIVELY

Same with the Nuernberg pricipals

IT IS THE LAW, no matter how much you like to change it

 

[hoping in 2009]

My dad applied for citizenship back in 1991 and lied about having committed a crime. Would reapplying 17 years later affect his application?

Determine how bad his crime was (like someone said if it was big like murder forget it ) but there are other crimes where he still may have a chance.

It is in your dad's BEST interest to ask a lawyer for advice

 

[Huracan]

I agree that l profoundly dislike the 1996 law. It is pathetic that congress chooses names for the laws that most of the time are the opposite of the effect they have. Take the PATRIOT act as an example. The 1996 law was called the "illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act". It sounds good, but I tend to prefer that if someone asks responsibility of me that it is not retroactive. Someone sets the new rules and we'll try to comply. However, applying this retroactively is a great shame. If the US weren't going through an anti-immigrant phase people should see the shame on it and ask Congress to rectify a big deal of that flawed law.

 

[WBH]

Did INS discover the lie when he applied in 1991? If they already know about the lie and the crime is not of a type that is now classified as deportable, he may be able to apply for citizenship successfully now.

What other reasons could make INS deny his dad's application? Most likely the INS found out.

 

[Jackolantern]

Jack,

it's not my point - anything that changes the law retroactively (pardons as exceptions, but that's not a change of law) is totally out of whack.

I know what you meant. My point was that they can get away with passing a ridiculous upside-down law like that because it has become acceptable to treat noncitizens as subhuman.

 

[WBH]

Exactly what crimes or offenses were not deportable but became
deportable after 1996?

 

[Bobsmyth]

It expanded the definition of an aggravated felony based on sentence of 1 year or more and made those offenses deportable retroactively. For example, an immigrant who was caught for shoplifting and was sentenced to 1 year in prison prior to 1996 could be deported, regarless of whether the sentence was served or not.

 

[WBH]

It expanded the definition of an aggravated felony based on sentence of 1 year or more and made those offenses deportable retroactively. For example, an immigrant who was caught for shoplifting and was sentenced to 1 year in prison prior to 1996 could be deported, regarless of whether the sentence was served or not.

So before 1996, how many years of sentence was cut off rule for deportation? Also if there was no criminal conviction so there was no sentence but it was considered to be a conviction for immigration purpose
how was aggrevated felony defined?

 

[Jackolantern]

So before 1996, how many years of sentence was cut off rule for deportation? Also if there was no criminal conviction so there was no sentence but it was considered to be a conviction for immigration purpose
how was aggrevated felony defined?

Before 1996, it was 5 years to be classified as an "aggravated felony". And the 1996 law also created the expanded definition of what is a conviction for immigration purposes.