To Tbarry: Regarding I-602

wantmygcnow

Volunteer Moderator
Tbarry. You are creating problems for yourself by sending the I-602 without USCIs asking for it.

You need to send your application and then send it if required. IF THEY DONT ASK, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT.

You do not know if you are inadmissable or not. Even if you think you are, you do not know the actual number that makes you inelgible, i.e, 245(a)(6)(c) etc...

If you put yourself the reason you are ineligible and if its wrong. you are making a huge problem for yourself.

Your private messagess are disabled so I could not respond to your Private message.
 
wantmygcnow said:
Tbarry. You are creating problems for yourself by sending the I-602 without USCIs asking for it.

You need to send your application and then send it if required. IF THEY DONT ASK, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT.

You do not know if you are inadmissable or not. Even if you think you are, you do not know the actual number that makes you inelgible, i.e, 245(a)(6)(c) etc...

If you put yourself the reason you are ineligible and if its wrong. you are making a huge problem for yourself.

Your private messagess are disabled so I could not respond to your Private message.

If you recognize entering US on fake document,you may send your I-602 in advance along with your I-485.There is not problem.If you're filling your I-485 with a good lawyer,he/she's gonna advice you to do so_On uscis web,you're gonna find I-602 listed as document when filling I-485 as a refugee or asylee.

RD Aug 22,2001
Approved Sep 15,2005
GC received Sep 20,2005
 
cadel said:
If you recognize entering US on fake document,you may send your I-602 in advance along with your I-485.There is not problem.If you're filling your I-485 with a good lawyer,he/she's gonna advice you to do so_On uscis web,you're gonna find I-602 listed as document when filling I-485 as a refugee or asylee.

RD Aug 22,2001
Approved Sep 15,2005
GC received Sep 20,2005

His case is not of fake documents. His case is of a crime he commited. He hasn't filed his I-485 and doesn't know if he is adjustable or not.
 
wantmygcnow said:
Tbarry. You are creating problems for yourself by sending the I-602 without USCIs asking for it.

You need to send your application and then send it if required. IF THEY DONT ASK, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT.

You do not know if you are inadmissable or not. Even if you think you are, you do not know the actual number that makes you inelgible, i.e, 245(a)(6)(c) etc...

If you put yourself the reason you are ineligible and if its wrong. you are making a huge problem for yourself.

Your private messagess are disabled so I could not respond to your Private message.



Thank you for your response.
Yes!, I was arrested 6 years ago for patronizing prostitution [ 212 (a) (2) (D)(ii)]and I have been doing some research on the web, I found the quote below. That's why I want to send the I-602 & I-485 concurently.

) Prostitution and commercialized vice.-Any alien who- Sec. 212(a)(2)(D).



(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,


(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10- year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or


(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution, is inadmissible.


Criminal and related grounds.-


(A) Conviction of certain crimes.-


(i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-


(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime), or


(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible.


(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-



(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or


(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).


Chapter 41.6 Waivers of inadmissibility for refugees and asylees.



(a) Legal Authority. (Revised 10-31-2005; AFM AD05-33) Under section 209(c) of the Act, the inadmissibility grounds set out in sections 212(a)(4) (public charge), 212(a)(5) (labor certification), and 212(a)(7)(A) (immigrant documentation requirements) of the Act do not apply to asylee and refugee adjustment applicants.



Section 209(c) of the Act prohibits the Secretary from waiving the following grounds of inadmissibility:



• Section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Act relating to drug trafficking;



• Section 212(a)(3)(A) of the Act relating to security grounds;



• Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Act relating to terrorist activities;



• Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Act relating to foreign policy considerations;and



• Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the Act relating to Nazi persecution and genocide.



The Secretary may waive any other ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a) of the Act for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.



(b) Adjudication of Waiver. An asylee or refugee may submit a Form I-602, Application By Refugee For Waiver of Grounds of Excludability, concurrently with the submission of the Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. The grant of asylee or refugee status does not automatically waive any ground of inadmissibility. Each waiver request or application must be evaluated and adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. The grant and other information available to the adjudicator may provide a sufficient basis for determining that a waiver is warranted on humanitarian, family unity, or other public interest grounds.



In adjudicating a discretionary waiver application under 209(c) of the Act, the humanitarian, family unity, or public interest considerations must be balanced against the seriousness of the offense that rendered the alien inadmissible. In making this determination, the adjudicator should recognize that the alien has established past or a well-founded fear of future persecution, which is an extremely strong positive discretionary factor. Therefore, unless there are negative factors that outweigh the positive ones, the adjudicator should generally approve the waiver application.



If an alien is inadmissible under section 212(a)(2) of the Act because he or she committed a violent or dangerous crime, the adjudicator should not grant a waiver under section 209(c) of the Act except in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations, or cases in which an alien clearly demonstrates that denying adjustment of status would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. Depending on the gravity of the alien’s underlying criminal offense, such a showing of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship might still be insufficient. See Matter of Jean, 23 I&N Dec. 373 (A.G. 2002).



Neither section 209 of the Act nor 8 CFR 209 requires submission of Form I-602 in all cases where an alien is found inadmissible under a ground that may be waived. Paragraph (b)(1) below specifies when USCIS may grant a waiver without requiring the applicant to file Form I-602. Paragraph (b)(2) below specifies how to process a case when a Form I-602 is required.



(1) When Form I-602 is Not Required. In certain instances, USCIS has determined that submission of Form I-602 is not required. When an adjudicator determines that a refugee or asylee requires a waiver prior to adjustment of status, the adjudicator may grant the waiver without requiring submission of Form I-602 if:



· The applicant is inadmissible under a ground of inadmissibility that may be waived other than section 212(a)(1) of the Act [health related grounds];



· USCIS records and other information available to the adjudicator contain sufficient information to assess eligibility for a waiver; and



· There is no evidence to suggest that negative factors would adversely impact the exercise of discretion.



If these requirements are met, it is in the public interest to grant the waiver without requiring submission of Form I-602. In addition, it is in the public interest to decrease the burden on both the applicant and USCIS with respect to processing paperwork that is already available to the adjudicator.



The adjudicator should indicate that the waiver has been granted by annotating and initialing the “Remarks” section of the Form I-485 that the inadmissibility violation has been waived. For example, if the adjudicator grants a waiver of section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) (present without admission or parole) or section 212(a)(9)(B) (unlawfully present) of the Act, then the adjudicator should annotate and initial in the “Remarks” section: “212(a)(6)(A)(i) violation waived” or “212(a)(9)(B) violation waived.”



(2) When Form I-602 is Required. If the ground of inadmissibility may be waived but the requirements noted in (b)(1) are not satisfied, the adjudicator should require the refugee-based or asylum-based adjustment applicant to submit Form I-602 if the applicant has not already done so.



Example: If it is determined that a refugee adjustment applicant is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act because he or she entered the U.S. under a false identity, this could be considered a negative factor that adversely impacts the exercise of discretion. In this situation, an adjudicator must require the refugee-based adjustment applicant to file a Form I-602 with an explanation, and supporting documentation if available, demonstrating that the alien is eligible for and should be granted a waiver under section 209(c) as a matter of discretion.



(A) Approval of Form I-602. If the waiver is approved under section 209(c) of the Act for a refugee or asylee applying for adjustment of status under section 209 of the Act, the adjudicator should place the waiver notation on Form I-181 [Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent Residence]. In addition, the adjudicator should place the waiver notation on Form I-602 and retain it in the A-file.



Since the approval of the adjustment application will indicate the approval of the waiver application, there is no need for a separate approval notice. The adjudicator should simply stamp the Form I-602 approved, check the block labeled “Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility is Granted,” and make the appropriate endorsements in the space labeled “Basis For Favorable Action.”



(B) Denial of Form I-602. If the alien submits on his or her own initiative a Form I-602 application seeking waiver of inadmissibility of section 212(a)(2)(C), 212(a)(3)(A), 212(a)(3)(B), 212(a)(3)(C) or 212(a)(3)(E) of the Act, or if there are sufficient negative factors to warrant denial of a Form I-602 application for waiver of a ground of inadmissibility that may be waived, the adjudicator should check the block labeled “Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility is Denied,” and write “See Form I-291" in the space labeled “Reasons.” The denial of the waiver should be fully discussed in the denial of the adjustment application. While there is no appeal from the denial of a Form I-602 waiver application, the immigration judge may consider the waiver application if the adjustment application is renewed during removal proceedings
 
tbarry said:
Thank you for your response.
Yes!, I was arrested 6 years ago for patronizing prostitution [ 212 (a) (2) (D)(ii)]and I have been doing some research on the web, I found the quote below. That's why I want to send the I-602 & I-485 concurently.

Tbarry:
I got really bad advice from an immigration lawyer regarding waivers, and since then did everything on my own, sometimes with help and suggestions from this great group. Even with that background, I would STRONGLY recommend that you hire a lawyer to do this (if you can afford one). I would suggest calling immigration lawyers, and asking them if they have any actual experience with crime of moral turpitude. If the answer is "Huh?" or hesitation, move on and try the next one. While I think you have a good shot at the waiver, you sometime need a lawyer on your side just to keep CIS to behave.

Good luck.

Floyd
 
Thanks GUYS!
I did spoke with some lawyers, some says that I need the I-602 and I-485 concurently, others says NO I do not need it since I fall under the petty offense exception. Because it's my only crime, and my crime is a class B misdemeanor and punishble with up to 6 months in jail and up to $500 fine.

With that confuse they're asking lot of money and I am already 5 years behind for filling my I-485.

And I think it can be waive. Because this below. Mine is 212(a)(2)(D)

Section 209(c) of the Act prohibits the Secretary from waiving the following grounds of inadmissibility:

• Section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Act relating to drug trafficking;

• Section 212(a)(3)(A) of the Act relating to security grounds;

• Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Act relating to terrorist activities;

• Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Act relating to foreign policy considerations;and

• Section 212(a)(3)(E) of the Act relating to Nazi persecution and genocide.

The Secretary may waive any other ground of inadmissibility under section 212(a) of the Act for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.
 
jubilee said:
before thinking about apply for I-485 or even working on I-602 waiver ..you need to hire criminal defense lawyer and resolve your case by returning to the court seeking to reopen the case based on ineffective assisstance of counsel or awarness of immigration consequences during the plea time..
once you fix the problem ..you can apply for adjustement.
many criminal defense lawyer or even convicted aliens are not aware that a good defense deal has the potential to became a fatal immigration consequences.


I do not think you can go back and change the guilty plea. I pled guilty without knowing the immigration consequence and it's was expunged a year later. But the expugment do not matter to the immigration.

I talked to a criminal lawyer 2 years ago he told I can not go back and change the decision.
 
tbarry said:
I do not think you can go back and change the guilty plea. I pled guilty without knowing the immigration consequence and it's was expunged a year later. But the expugment do not matter to the immigration.

I talked to a criminal lawyer 2 years ago he told I can not go back and change the decision.

If its expunged then of course there is nothing to change. I think you have a fair shot.

Having done a I-602 myself (false claim of US Citizenship at port of entry: a really big deal), I think you have a good shot.

Whatever course you take, good luck.
 
wantmygcnow said:
His case is not of fake documents. His case is of a crime he commited. He hasn't filed his I-485 and doesn't know if he is adjustable or not.

The situation is really serious.In case like this,I-602 is not gonna solve the problem.

RD Aug 22,2001
Approved Sep 15,2005
GC received Sep 20,2005
 
Hey Guys I know my situation is bad but, I just found this on American Immigration Lawyers Association website. Please read it and give your opiniun.
Remenber my conviction is under INA sec. 212(a)(2)(D)(ii).

AILF and AILA's Comments to Interim Rule on 212(h) Waivers
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 03012742 (posted Jan. 27, 2003)"


American Immigration Law Foundation

SENT VIA E-MAIL TO insregs@usdoj.gov

January 27, 2003


Director, Regulations and Forms Services Division
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street, N.W., Room 4034
Washington DC 20536

RE: Comments to Interim Rule on Waiver of Criminal Grounds of Inadmissibility for Immigrants
INS No. 2249-02; AG Order No. 2641-2002; RIN 1115-AG90
67 Fed. Reg. 78675 (December 26, 2002)

The American Immigration Law Foundation ("AILF") and the American Immigration Lawyers Association ("AILA") submit the following comments on the interim rule regarding waivers under § 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA").

I. Background

A waiver of certain criminal grounds of inadmissibility for the immediate family members of U.S. citizens ("USCs") or lawful permanent residents ("LPRs") has existed since the 1950s. See Matter of Sanchez, 17 I & N Dec. 218 (BIA 1980) (Discussing INA § 212(h) and its predecessors, § 5 of the September 11, 1957 Act and the prior § 212(g)). The statutory standard for a waiver under INA § 212(h)(1)(B) always has been whether the denial of an immigrant visa or adjustment of status to the applicant would cause "extreme hardship" to the applicant's USC and/or LPR family members. See Matter of B-, 11 I & N Dec. 560 (Assoc. Comm. 1966); Matter of H-, 14 I & N Dec. 185 (Reg. Comm. 1972); Matter of Alarcon, 20 I & N Dec. 557 (BIA 1992). Even when the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA" or "Board") held that it can consider factors other than extreme hardship to the USC or LPR family members in determining whether to exercise its discretion under INA § 212(h), it chose to do so in an individualized balancing test of positive equities versus adverse factors present in each case. Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I & N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).

In 1991, Congress expanded the 212(h) waiver to immigrants without qualifying USC or LPR relatives.1 INA § 212(h)(1)(A) does not require an applicant to show extreme hardship. Instead, it requires the applicant to show that the crime at issue had been committed at least fifteen years ago, that s/he has been rehabilitated, and that his or her admission into the U.S. would not be contrary to our national welfare, safety or security.

In contrast to the plain language of INA § 212(h) and long-standing case law interpreting INA § 212(h), the interim rule imposes a de facto ban on the granting of 212(h) waivers. In cases involving "violent or dangerous crimes," the applicant must now demonstrate "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d) (effective Jan. 27, 2003). Even where the applicant has met such a high standard, the waiver may still be denied depending on the gravity of the underlying criminal offense. Id. The supplementary information to the interim rule goes even further and states that "in general, individuals convicted of aggravated felony would not warrant the Attorney General's discretion." 67 Fed. Reg. at 78677.

Clearly, the interim rule is flawed for several reasons. One, it exceeds statutory authority. The interim rule ignores the eligibility criteria mandated by INA § 212(h)(1)(A) and § 212(h)(1)(B) and attempts to override the statute by imposing its own standard for a 212(h) waiver. Two, the interim rule arbitrarily limits the proper exercise of discretion by focusing solely on the nature of the crime involved, rather than giving full consideration to all positive and negative factors in each individual case. Finally, the interim rule does not clearly indicate that it should not be applied retroactively.

II. The Interim Rule Exceeds Statutory Authority and Contravenes Legislative Intent.

A. INA § 212(h)(1)(A)

INA § 212(h)(1)(A) allows for a waiver of certain criminal grounds of inadmissibility if:

The applicant is inadmissible only under INA § 212(a)(2)(D)(i) or (D)(ii); or
The crime(s) for which the applicant is inadmissible occurred more than 15 years before the date of his or her application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status;
The applicant's admission to the U.S. would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States; and
The applicant has been rehabilitated.
Unlike an applicant for a waiver under INA § 212(h)(1)(B), an applicant for a waiver under INA § 212(h)(1)(A) need not show that the denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to his or her USC or LPR relatives. INA § 212(h)(1)(A); See also Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I & N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996).

Despite these clear statutory requirements for a waiver under INA § 212(h)(1)(A), the interim rule would prohibit the granting of a waiver under this subsection if the case involved "violent or dangerous crimes," unless the applicant could show that the denial of the waiver would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d) (effective January 27, 2003).
 
What you quoted below does not really apply to you because you are an asylee. Let me re-iterate my recommendation of securing legal counsel. I see that you have been frantic and anxious over this whole thing. You are just not going anywhere trying to solve this problem on your own. You are basically self-diagnosing and self-medicating!!!!!!!! This is dangerous. What you need is professional help. I am sure this will be a non-issue if you handle it correctly. The key is correctly and you need legal advise for this.


tbarry said:
Hey Guys I know my situation is bad but, I just found this on American Immigration Lawyers Association website. Please read it and give your opiniun.
Remenber my conviction is under INA sec. 212(a)(2)(D)(ii).

AILF and AILA's Comments to Interim Rule on 212(h) Waivers
Cite as "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 03012742 (posted Jan. 27, 2003)"


American Immigration Law Foundation

SENT VIA E-MAIL TO insregs@usdoj.gov

January 27, 2003


Director, Regulations and Forms Services Division
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street, N.W., Room 4034
Washington DC 20536

RE: Comments to Interim Rule on Waiver of Criminal Grounds of Inadmissibility for Immigrants
INS No. 2249-02; AG Order No. 2641-2002; RIN 1115-AG90
67 Fed. Reg. 78675 (December 26, 2002)

The American Immigration Law Foundation ("AILF") and the American Immigration Lawyers Association ("AILA") submit the following comments on the interim rule regarding waivers under § 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA").

I. Background

A waiver of certain criminal grounds of inadmissibility for the immediate family members of U.S. citizens ("USCs") or lawful permanent residents ("LPRs") has existed since the 1950s. See Matter of Sanchez, 17 I & N Dec. 218 (BIA 1980) (Discussing INA § 212(h) and its predecessors, § 5 of the September 11, 1957 Act and the prior § 212(g)). The statutory standard for a waiver under INA § 212(h)(1)(B) always has been whether the denial of an immigrant visa or adjustment of status to the applicant would cause "extreme hardship" to the applicant's USC and/or LPR family members. See Matter of B-, 11 I & N Dec. 560 (Assoc. Comm. 1966); Matter of H-, 14 I & N Dec. 185 (Reg. Comm. 1972); Matter of Alarcon, 20 I & N Dec. 557 (BIA 1992). Even when the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA" or "Board") held that it can consider factors other than extreme hardship to the USC or LPR family members in determining whether to exercise its discretion under INA § 212(h), it chose to do so in an individualized balancing test of positive equities versus adverse factors present in each case. Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I & N Dec. 296 (BIA 1996).

In 1991, Congress expanded the 212(h) waiver to immigrants without qualifying USC or LPR relatives.1 INA § 212(h)(1)(A) does not require an applicant to show extreme hardship. Instead, it requires the applicant to show that the crime at issue had been committed at least fifteen years ago, that s/he has been rehabilitated, and that his or her admission into the U.S. would not be contrary to our national welfare, safety or security.

In contrast to the plain language of INA § 212(h) and long-standing case law interpreting INA § 212(h), the interim rule imposes a de facto ban on the granting of 212(h) waivers. In cases involving "violent or dangerous crimes," the applicant must now demonstrate "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d) (effective Jan. 27, 2003). Even where the applicant has met such a high standard, the waiver may still be denied depending on the gravity of the underlying criminal offense. Id. The supplementary information to the interim rule goes even further and states that "in general, individuals convicted of aggravated felony would not warrant the Attorney General's discretion." 67 Fed. Reg. at 78677.

Clearly, the interim rule is flawed for several reasons. One, it exceeds statutory authority. The interim rule ignores the eligibility criteria mandated by INA § 212(h)(1)(A) and § 212(h)(1)(B) and attempts to override the statute by imposing its own standard for a 212(h) waiver. Two, the interim rule arbitrarily limits the proper exercise of discretion by focusing solely on the nature of the crime involved, rather than giving full consideration to all positive and negative factors in each individual case. Finally, the interim rule does not clearly indicate that it should not be applied retroactively.

II. The Interim Rule Exceeds Statutory Authority and Contravenes Legislative Intent.

A. INA § 212(h)(1)(A)

INA § 212(h)(1)(A) allows for a waiver of certain criminal grounds of inadmissibility if:

The applicant is inadmissible only under INA § 212(a)(2)(D)(i) or (D)(ii); or
The crime(s) for which the applicant is inadmissible occurred more than 15 years before the date of his or her application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status;
The applicant's admission to the U.S. would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States; and
The applicant has been rehabilitated.
Unlike an applicant for a waiver under INA § 212(h)(1)(B), an applicant for a waiver under INA § 212(h)(1)(A) need not show that the denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to his or her USC or LPR relatives. INA § 212(h)(1)(A); See also Matter of Mendez-Moralez, 21 I & N Dec. 296, 301 (BIA 1996).

Despite these clear statutory requirements for a waiver under INA § 212(h)(1)(A), the interim rule would prohibit the granting of a waiver under this subsection if the case involved "violent or dangerous crimes," unless the applicant could show that the denial of the waiver would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d) (effective January 27, 2003).
 
Top