33

A Jamaican committed marriage fraud about 30 years ago by marrying a US citizen in a marriage where the groom was paid a certain amount of money to marry her. The groom got in legal trouble for an unrelated matter, and the marriage fraud was discovered and the family friend was deported back to Jamaica. She no longer has any paperwork involved with the deportation and she can’t remember any of the details. I do not know if she simply agreed to return to Jamica when the fraud was discovered, or if she made any attempts to mount any type of legal defense in the case. I do know that she was cooperative with the immigration authorities and that they did not have to come looking for her. She would like to come the USA for a two-week visit. The main purpose of the visit is for her to visit a friend (US citizen) who is terminally ill.

I have been looking at 8 U.S.C. 1182 and from my reading of it, it would seem that she would not be admissible to the US because of the previous immigration fraud. My understanding is based on the section that says:

In general.-Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this Act is inadmissible.

What’s not clear to me is if this means that she would be inadmissible permanently or if this would be subject to the 10 year limit. Can anyone help provide some clarity on this? If the ban is not permanent are there any tips to being able to increase her chances of being able to get a visa. She intends to honestly answer all questions during her application process for a visa.

Improve this question
6
  • 2
    Just to note that an edit has been proposed which removes the key point that the desire to visit is urgent because the person being visited is terminally ill. (The edit may be accepted because, apart from the deletion of this important information, it makes a whole bunch of minor changes which could be seen as improvements.)
    – David Richerby
    Jun 6, 2018 at 11:35
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby how is the reason for visiting a key point? It's just justification for wanting to go to the US for 2 weeks, and has no bearing on the question being asked.
    – Callum Bradbury
    Jun 6, 2018 at 12:24
  • 14
    @CallumBradbury Often the advice for dealing with temporary travel bans is "It's not worth fighting it: just wait until the ban expires." That isn't applicable because of the urgency of the situation (though also because it appears the ban is permanent). Perphaps more significantly, if one is going to try to overturn the ban, "I want to visit my terminally ill friend" is a much more compelling reason to be allowed a waiver than "I want to see the Grand Canyon" or whatever.
    – David Richerby
    Jun 6, 2018 at 12:47
  • 3
    And quite apart from anything else, why remove information from the question? Even if it causes no harm, how can removing those few words be beneficial?
    – David Richerby
    Jun 6, 2018 at 12:48
  • 7
    I accepted the edit then added terminally ill back to the question.
    – Itsme2003
    Jun 6, 2018 at 13:01

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
36

Yes, the ban for fraud or willful misrepresentation, in INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), is a lifetime ban. Whenever the law says that someone is "inadmissible" without any other qualification, that means it is a lifetime ban (i.e. the person will still be inadmissible no matter how much time has passed). For the bans that last a fixed amount of time, the law says something like "an alien who ... who again seeks admission within X years of ... is inadmissible"; this means that it is an X-year ban (i.e. it only makes the person inadmissible for an attempt to seek entry within X years of the start of the ban).

Since she is under a ban, if she wants to go to the US, she will need a waiver. Since she is going as a nonimmigrant visitor, she will need a nonimmigrant waiver (under INA 212(d)(3)(A)). There is no separate form to apply for this. Rather, she will apply for a visitor visa as usual, and if it is denied solely due to a ban (and not due to failure to overcome "immigrant intent", which has no waiver), the consular officer adjudicating her visa will inform her of the steps to apply for a waiver, which will be decided by that same officer.

Improve this answer
8
  • Thank you for this information. I researched that and it looks like if the waiver is approved the process will take 150 - 180 days on average to be completed. But at least there is a possible pathway, which is what I was trying to determine. Is it also the case that a Form I-192 or I-212 will need to be filled out as well?
    – Itsme2003
    Jun 6, 2018 at 13:10
  • 3
    @Itsme2003: No. No form needs to be filled out. I-192 is to apply for a nonimmigrant waiver for people who never need to apply for a visa, like Canadian citizens. It is not generally applicable for other nationalities. I-212 will eliminate a 9A or 9C ban (for both immigrants and nonimmigrants). Nonimmigrants with a 9A or 9C ban can either get a waiver or do I-212 to get rid of the ban. Deportation does cause a 9A ban but for the first time it is 10 years unless other conditions apply, so it should have long passed.
    – user102008
    Jun 6, 2018 at 15:13
  • 6
    Another option I didn't mention, if she can't get a visa and it is very urgent, is humanitarian parole. But those are very hard to get, and I don't know if seeing a dying "friend" who is not related to her is a sufficient humanitarian purpose.
    – user102008
    Jun 6, 2018 at 15:17
  • is there any way to expedite the process? For visiting a terminally ill person 150-180 days may be long enough that the person dies first.
    – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight
    Jun 6, 2018 at 18:09
  • 1
    @xyious: Whether they have records is not relevant. When she applies for a visa, she will be asked questions regarding whether she has sought to obtain an immigration benefit by fraud or willful misrepresentation, and she will have to answer honestly that she did. And by that fact alone, she has this ban because the law says people with this factual situation are inadmissible. Nobody needed to have ever told her of this ban (and there doesn't even need to have been this type of ban at the time she was deported).
    – user102008
    Jun 6, 2018 at 21:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .