Serious issue ! Deportation - Can I get advise please ?

[Triple Citizen]

I know casinos use facial recognition systems but I seriously doubt stores use those. I agree, something is missing from the story.

Those shops have high employee turnover, and it is hard to believe that an employee would recognize her years later, without her doing something to bring attention to herself.

 

[Bobsmyth]

Tried that and it didn't work ,

the first case they actually found a legal issue so they overturned it .

If the first conviction was vacated and based on "a defect in the conviction or proceeding", then the first charge would not be used for immigration purposes.

http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/removcrim/removcrim082.htm

This leaves the second charge and whether the conviction and penalty of that charge is sufficient to warrant deportation.

Since every case is specific and we don't have all the facts, it's impossible to give you a solid answer. This is something that is best left to a qualified immigration lawyer to do.

 

[Jackolantern]

Well I posted a few questions here a while back , my wife had got 2 misdemeanor charges of petty theft , she got a letter from the INS and she was facing deportation .

Since then we managed to get 1 of them VACATED ..

Since it was vacated does she still have a chance to get deported ?

She has to appear next month so were trying to figure out if we need to pay out the extra money or no ?

We have the money so that's not an issue , but we don't want to throw it away if we don't need to .

Thanks

Given how close she got to deportation, you certainly should use an attorney. You don't want USCIS bringing up some odd precedent to use against her without an attorney to find something else to counteract it.

 

[WBH]

If the first conviction was vacated and based on "a defect in the conviction or proceeding", then the first charge would not be used for immigration purposes.

Do USCIS officer have the right to do this to immigration benefits applicant:
"I do not care if you are convicted or aquicted but I want to ask you
this question: did you really do that crime?".

If were an USCIS offcier and see an applicant with a single DUI record or
single theft record, I would doubt such a person was so unlucky that he was caught first time he did this. I would reasonablly assume he had done
that many amnay times until he was caught. I could not help but ask
fruther question. I woulkd ask teh applicant to swear three times and
I repeat this question three times to him : "Are you absolutely sure, and remeber you
are under Oath, you never stole anything or never drinka nd drive before you were arrested
this time? "


But I am not sure if rules or law forbid USCIS offcier to do such things.

 

[Mr Vertigo]

But I am not sure if rules or law forbid USCIS offcier to do such things.

No, the law forbids them from "assuming" you did something "many, many times" before you were caught.

 

[WBH]

No, the law forbids them from "assuming" you did something "many, many times" before you were caught.

Which law forbid them?

They can say they are not assuming but they want to know. That is why
ON N-400 form there is this Question 15 "Have you EVER commoted a crime or offense for which were NOT arrested?"

 

[Mr Vertigo]

Which law forbid them?

The one that places the burden of proof on the hands of law-enforcement agencies. You can't just "assume" that someone is guilty of prior offenses based on that one offense. By that circular logic, you can claim that each and every convicted felon has committed multiple felonies, "they just weren't caught." Because such claims are absurd, and because one is innocent until proven guilty, there are many legal standards in the United States that deal with burden of proof, reasonable doubt, etc.

They can say they are not assuming but they want to know. That is why
ON N-400 form there is this Question 15 "Have you EVER commoted a crime or offense for which were NOT arrested?"

And you say No, if the answer is No, and that's it. You can't just assume that one always drives at 150 miles/hour just because they were caught speeding once.

 

[WBH]

The one that places the burden of proof on the hands of law-enforcement agencies. You can't just "assume" that someone is guilty of prior offenses based on that one offense. By that circular logic, you can claim that each and every convicted felon has committed multiple felonies, "they just weren't caught." Because such claims are absurd, and because one is innocent until proven guilty, there are many legal standards in the United States that deal with burden of proof, reasonable doubt, etc.

All these are true for the purpose of convicting a defendant in crminal court. But USCIS can have different approach in determining good moral character
for immigration purpose

And you say No, if the answer is No, and that's it. You can't just assume that one always drives at 150 miles/hour just because they were caught speeding once.

So even if I really commote a crime or an offense for which I were not arreesed I should say No?

 

[Mr Vertigo]

All these are true for the purpose of convicting a defendant in crminal court. But USCIS can have different approach in determining good moral character
for immigration purpose

USCIS can't just start making up stuff that doesn't exist. Good moral character can be judged from acts which were committed, not acts which are purely philosophical in nature.

So even if I really commote a crime or an offense for which I were not arreesed I should say No?

Read what I'm saying. I'll quote myself:

And you say No, if the answer is No, and that's it.

 

[WBH]

USCIS can't just start making up stuff that doesn't exist. Good moral character can be judged from acts which were committed, not acts which are purely philosophical in nature.



Read what I'm saying. I'll quote myself:

What if in interview someone with DUI record explain to USCIS this way :"
I work in NYC and live iN NJ. THat day I went to a bar in NYC after work
and drove home and was arrested in NJ for DUI". Can USCIS IO
assume the accplicant at least also commited DUI in NY state
for which he was not arrested?

 

[Mr Vertigo]

What if in interview someone with DUI record explain to USCIS this way :"
I work in NYC and live iN NJ. THat day I went to a bar in NYC after work
and drove home and was arrested in NJ for DUI". Can USCIS IO
assume the accplicant at least also commited DUI in NY state
for which he was not arrested?

It seems like you're trying to split hairs here as you can't be convicted twice for the same offense.

 

[WBH]

It seems like you're trying to split hairs here as you can't be convicted twice for the same offense.

That is for the same offense under the sam ejurisdiction. If
you drive under influence from NY to NJ, you commited two
offense. In fact if there is a federal law about DUI, you
commit three.

I don't matter. I just wonder what if an USCIS IO wants to split hairs

 

[VisaNutz]

OP, do you have kids?
In the NTA, exactly with provision was used to make her "deportable"?
Personally, I don't think you even need a lawyer if two CIMT is all she has. You are a US citizen, right? She should request a relief from deportation showing extreme hardship on a US citizen. Judge should grant it.

 

[WBH]

OP, do you have kids?
In the NTA, exactly with provision was used to make her "deportable"?
Personally, I don't think you even need a lawyer if two CIMT is all she has. You are a US citizen, right? She should request a relief from deportation showing extreme hardship on a US citizen. Judge should grant it.

SOmeone say extrem e hardship means something like a US citizen child having a medical condition for which medical treatment is only availlable
in USA. Others situation like spouse has no work capabilityi, children do not kno wlangauge back in home countries, or mother getting deported
making dad unable to look after children ect don't count because all these are difficulties we encounter one way or another on routine basis anyway

 

[Mr Vertigo]

That is for the same offense under the sam ejurisdiction. If
you drive under influence from NY to NJ, you commited two
offense. In fact if there is a federal law about DUI, you
commit three.

NY and NJ are two different states, so it's two different jurisdictions. In case of a cross-border crime, it becomes a federal crime and that trumps any state jurisdiction. However, that is not true of any crime or offense. For example, if you talk on the phone while driving from NJ to NY and you only get stopped in NY, that doesn't make it a federal crime even though you committed the same offense in two separate jurisdictions.

I don't matter. I just wonder what if an USCIS IO wants to split hairs

You don't have to tell your IO officer that you drank in NY and drove to NJ. You just state that you got your citation in NJ, and that's it. Do not volunteer information unless specifically asked for it.

 

[VisaNutz]

SOmeone say extrem e hardship means something like a US citizen child having a medical condition for which medical treatment is only availlable
in USA. Others situation like spouse has no work capabilityi, children do not kno wlangauge back in home countries, or mother getting deported
making dad unable to look after children ect don't count because all these are difficulties we encounter one way or another on routine basis anyway

I actually meant hardship on the USC spouse and/or USC kids. If she is deported, it will tear the family apart, USC spouse will not be able to function and the kids will grow up without a mother. What's harder than that?

 

[WBH]

I actually meant hardship on the USC spouse and/or USC kids. If she is deported, it will tear the family apart, USC spouse will not be able to function and the kids will grow up without a mother. What's harder than that?

USCIS do not consider these to be extreme hardship and they also think
the USC spouse and/or USC kids have the choice to go with the mother
to Bulgaria.

Broken families are common and USCIS officiers and immigration judges
might be single parents etc so trhey don't think such are extreme hardship
as they themselves might be experiencing.

 

[VisaNutz]

^^^
Hmmm, either way, she is not going anywhere.
As a last resort, OP can always file a new I-130 and the spouse can petition the court to postpone the hearing until I-130 is adjudicated. If it is approved, judge will then approve AOS. She will just have to start all over again.

 

[WBH]

^^^
Hmmm, either way, she is not going anywhere.
As a last resort, OP can always file a new I-130 and the spouse can petition the court to postpone the hearing until I-130 is adjudicated. If it is approved, judge will then approve AOS. She will just have to start all over again.

That assumes offense is deportable but not inadmissible or inadmisisnle but waiverable.

 

[Mr Vertigo]

USCIS do not consider these to be extreme hardship and they also think
the USC spouse and/or USC kids have the choice to go with the mother
to Bulgaria.

Broken families are common and USCIS officiers and immigration judges
might be single parents etc so trhey don't think such are extreme hardship
as they themselves might be experiencing.

Where are you getting this information about USCIS and the private lives and beliefs of its employees?