Revocation of Naturalization?

I spoke to my fiance further, and he says his father was working with an attorney when getting a GC and that everything was probably kosher.

Keep it in mind that just because your fiance's father (or anyone else for that matter) was (is) working with an attorney (or have had an attorney) on his case then that doesn't mean everything was/is okay. As we all know that some attorneys do anything just to get a case, which involves misleading clients and playing with their immigration life. I've been around to 3 different immigration websites for many years and even saw in person when I was practicing immigration laws that most cases were denied because of attorneys' mistakes.

Besides, attorneys don't/cannot supercede the laws....
 
Thanks for the replies.

I do remember reading somewhere that there is a 5 year Statute of Limitations on prosecutions for any fraud which occurred while procuring a GC? Is there any truth to this? Cause then I would think both my fiance and his father would be ok?

Also, would it help at all if I marry my fiance (which I was going to do anyways, haha)? I am a born-US citizen

Read my lips-There is NO any statue of limitation or provision in immigration laws which states that a green card or a US citizenship cannot be revoked after 5 yrs (or after a certain period) if such a benefit was obtained based upon fraud (or based upon any other ineligiblity). Otherwise, people wouldn't be worried so much about losing their green card at the time of citizenship application even though citizenship application is filed after certain years of obtaining the green card.

The truth is- a green card and US citizenship can be revoked AT ANY TIME (even after 100 years later) if US govt. would EVER come to know that it was incorrectly obtained (like immigrant wasn't eligible for it at first place).
 
Yes, its called AC21 ("American Competitiveness in 21st Century Act").

Basically the act says that you can change jobs to one with similar roles/responsibilities providing your I-485 adjudication took more than 180 days. It is also worth noting that you do not have to work for the original sponsor company until AFTER the I-485 is approved, because an EB (employment based) GC is issued on the basis of a future offer of employment. These days you are supposed to notify USCIS if you invoke AC21, but back in 2001 it wasn't an issue as there were no USCIS guidelines for implementation.

This is 100% true. I think OP should try to seek information on her fiance's father case to determine if his case falls under this law than anything else so that she could be worry-free.
 
There is no such thing in immigration laws about denying/revoking an immigration benefit with prejudice or without prejudice.
Then why does this the last page of this court ruling (http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/091902.cfd.poka.pdf) say his naturalization is denied without prejudice? And why do I have an old tourist visa in my passport that is stamped "Canceled without prejudice"?

"With prejudice" doesn't necessarily mean one is barred from successfully reapplying for any immigration benefit. It just means your case will be looked at unfavorably when you reapply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone can have their green card or citizenship revoked due to various issues, such as fraud, crime of moral perpitude etc.,

Right...And let me add that a green card or a citizenship can be revoked AT ANY TIME regardless of how many years someone has it. However, citizenship cannot be revoked for crimes/offences occured AFTER being granting citizenship except treason. But citizenship will and can be revoked if it was obtained based upon misrepresentation/fraud/lies or any kind of concealment of information that were important to determine the eligibility of the person.
 
Then why does this the last page of this court ruling (http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/091902.cfd.poka.pdf) say his naturalization is denied without prejudice? And why do I have an old tourist visa in my passport that is stamped "Canceled without prejudice"?

"With prejudice" doesn't necessarily mean one is barred from successfully reapplying for any immigration benefit. It just means your case will be looked at unfavorably when you reapply.


Though US govt. have chosen to put such a remark in their decision, which is just to let the applicants know in black and white that they can re-apply for the benefit after denial/revocation, but nowhere in the immigration laws it states about prejudice or without prejudice; rather it just states about having a permanent bar.
 
It turns out there is a 5-year statute of limitations regarding the green card, but this court case (unless it has since been overruled) renders it almost useless in court. However, this other case which was at the Supreme Court indicates that the 5-year period still has some value, in that before 5 years they can take away the card by the simpler process of rescission, which apparently does not require going to court, but beyond 5 years they must put you in removal proceedings, which will involve a court.

Anyway, what do you and I really know? We're not lawyers, and some of the lawyers don't even know what's really going on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Though US govt. have chosen to put such a remark in their decision, which is just to let the applicants know in black and white that they can re-apply for the benefit after denial/revocation, but nowhere in the immigration laws it states about prejudice or without prejudice; rather it just states about having a permanent bar.
Whether or not those actual words are in the immigration laws, they are used in court, and if citizenship is revoked, it would happen with a court case (unless the defendant decides not to fight it in court), and the court may use the "with/without prejudice" terminology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyway, what do you and I really know? We're not lawyers, and some of the lawyers don't even know what's really going on.

It seems that you know nothing about me. I'm a former INS attorney. Also, I practiced immigration laws very aggressively while working for an immigration firm. For the last 5 yrs, I've been involved with 3 different immigration websites in helping people to give them the right and correct answers to their immigration problems to the best of my knowledge.
 
It seems that you know nothing about me. I'm a former INS attorney. Also, I practiced immigration laws very aggressively while working for an immigration firm.
No, I don't know about you. Why didn't you just state your qualifications in the thread or your signature? Working on the side of the INS certainly gives a very useful perspective.
 
Thanks for all the responses.

Honestly, it makes it difficult for my fiance to remember everything, since he was just a teenager (with other things to worry about :) ) back then, and he obviously just let his father do everything.

What made it confusing for my fiance was that he thinks (and even this he's not 100 percent sure about) that his father was working for a different company at the time of the GC being granted and afterwards than the company which he was working for when the GC process started.

It was pretty much a situation where, for example, his father was working for GM v. Ford v. Chrysler (To use an oversimplified example), and my fiance thinks his father may have been working for GM at the time of the GC application and was working for Ford at time of approval.

Again, even this he's not 100 percent sure about. But it seems like this would fall within that AC21?

And am I relatively correct to assume (this would be most important), even WORSE CASE scenario my fiance would be able to obtain GC/ USC through marriage with me?

Thanks!
 
Well he better think hard about who he was working for, and when, because he'll need that information when he fills out his N-400.
 
Very interesting thread. I stumbled upon this thread while researching some other issue about passports. Would someone have or know anything about revocation statistics? It seems clear from Johnny Cash comments several of the circumstances that lead to revocation, but it is not clear how often it happens and how aggressively these cases are brought before courts. At the end of the day like anything it has to be a matter of priorities and budgets. I've always found very cruel the part of the law that affects lives in cascade when an original immigration benefit wrongfully obtained causes all other derivative benefits to evaporate. There should be some statue of limitation at least for derivative beneficiaries. For goodness sake it is people who have set roots, even when those roots turn out to have been set in shaky ground.
 
Top