quote:

Originally posted by Naija:
I only know of murder cases that don't have statue of limitation but others like presenting false document must have a statue of limitation.

So basically you want to know when he can come out of the woods.

Davdah is right. Here's the thread pertaining to that particular couple. Their error was in failing to disclose they had gotten married since their visa applications were filled out, which would have changed their eligibility, more than 20 years ago.

Their 'mistake' was a lot less grievous than deliberately using fraudulent documents to obtain status.

A statute of limitation is generally only present on criminal proceedings. So while your 'friend' may escape prison, they can still (and will) deport him and give him a lifetime ban.

Why confuse deportation, removal, bans and the such with the criminal side of the problem. These are two independent issues.

I guess the OP is just asking about criminal statutes under Title 18.

1. What is a fraud waiver?
A fraud waiver is a benefit which allows certain persons who have committed an immigration fraud or material misrepresentation to obtain a visa or green card despite their transgression.

Specifically, it can waive the ground of excludability or inadmissibility for fraud or material misrepresentation. This ground applies to people who, by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact, have sought to procure, seek to procure, or have procured a visa, other documentation or entry (admission) into the U.S., or other benefit under the immigration laws.

The following are examples of fraud or misrepresentation:

1. Using a false name, birth date, marital status to obtain a visa, an extension or change of status or adjustment of status.

2. Falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident on an I-9 form to obtain employment.

2. How could someone qualify for the waiver before the new law?
There were two ways to qualify for the waiver before the new law changed this section on September 30, 1996:

1. If the intending immigrant or immigrant who was the spouse, parent, or son or daughter of a United States citizen (USC) or lawful permanent resident (LPR);

or

2. If the fraud or misrepresentation occurred at least 10 years before the date of the immigrant's application for a visa, entry or adjustment of status, and admission of the immigrant would not be contrary to the interests of the United States.

3. Is the fraud waiver still available under the new law?
Yes, but it has been greatly restricted.
4. How does the new law restrict the availability of the fraud waiver?
A section in the new law (section 349) changed the availability of the waiver in three ways:

1. It eliminated the 10-year "statute of limitations" option. Thus, the only way to obtain a fraud waiver is through a family relationship;

2. It eliminates the word "parent" from the list of people who can qualify for a fraud waiver. This means that only spouses or sons or daughters of USCs or LPRs are eligible for the waiver. Parents of a USC or LPR no longer can obtain this waiver (perhaps Congress did not want people to "benefit" from giving birth to a child in the U.S.);

and

3. The applicant must establish that the qualifying relative would suffer "extreme hardship" if the applicant were denied admission or forced to leave the U.S.

5. So, in summary, under the new law, who can obtain a fraud waiver?
Under the new law, the only people who can obtain a fraud waiver are spouses and sons and daughters of USCs or LPRs, and only if they show that the qualifying relative would suffer extreme hardship if the waiver is not granted.
6. What does "extreme hardship" mean in this context?
The statute does not define the term, but presumably it means the same as it did in the suspension of deportation context.
7. Are there any other restrictions in the new law about this waiver?
Yes. The new law also states that "no court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action of the Attorney General regarding this waiver."

If this preclusion is valid -- and it may be subject to challenge in the courts -- it means that there is no court review. It does not limit or restrict administrative review by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
8. When are these changes effective and do they apply to pending cases?
The new law does not include an effective date and does not indicate that Congress intended it to apply to pending cases. It is often said that where a statute does not express an effective date, it is effective upon enactment. However, even if this is true, that does not answer the second question: whether the changes made apply to pending cases or applications.

Under Supreme Court law, a new statute that restricts relief or has other negative consequences should not apply to pending cases unless Congress clearly indicated its intent that it should.

Here, where Congress did not communicate an intent that the new law restrictions apply to pending cases and applications, arguably they should not.
9. Does that mean my application for the fraud waiver may go ahead under the old law without the "hardship" requirement?
Arguably, yes. However, we can anticipate that the INS will not agree with this interpretation, but will argue that the statute is effective immediately and applies to all pending cases and applications.

Bankruptcy fraud and immigration fraud

Mr.X Filed bankruptcy and concealed assetts thus committing fraud.Trustee found it.
Later on it was revealed Mr.X got green card in 1986 under farm worker scheme by submitting fake papers.He came as a tourist and with the help of lawyer got green card.
What consequences Mr.X can have?

If Mr. X is a citizen not a lot can happen as the statute of limitations on Fraud appears to be up. If he is fits any of the deportation or loss of naturalization provisions, he can be pursued, however short of his being a terrorist or a war crime criminal it is unlikely that he can be prosecuted there. His bad act can be used against him however in court on other issues (like the bankruptcy fraud)

As for the bankruptcy fraud, you do not give a date for that. Assuming that the statute of Limitations is not up, and the Trustee feels the mistakes were intentional, he can refer the case for prosecution by the US Attorney's office. If the office is a big one and busy and the "fraud" was not significant, then they may decide it would be a waste of scarce resources to pursue Mr. X. In that case, the state prosecutor could go after him but as this is a federal issue, they may decide not to waste their resources unless it will yield a positive result with either the public at large (whose tax dollars they spend) or gets them a favor with the Fed Prosecutors.

In other words, if he was a crook, and a big enough crook, someone will get him however if he is not a big enough crook, even though he's been caught red handed nothing may happen.

Fortunately for you however you can still pursue him civilly. In many jurisdictions Fraud carries a penalty of treble damages.

Good luck

quote:

Originally posted by Naija:
What is the statue of limitation for presenting false document to INS. How long do INS have to prosecute anybody for presenting false document.

I agree with Speed. If the document presented was fraudulent, then there is no statues of limitations when the government can prosecute. However, proving fraud is a totally different ballgame. The most important question is how to prove fraud or whether there is a preponderance of the evidence to ensure a conviction. This is where an attorney is most valuable. I would prefer an immigration attorney who is also board certified in criminal defense. This is a very good website to start your search.

quote:

Originally posted by Aroha:
Davdah is right. Here's the thread pertaining to that particular couple. Their error was in failing to disclose they had gotten married since their visa applications were filled out, which would have changed their eligibility, more than 20 years ago.

Their 'mistake' was a lot less grievous than deliberately using fraudulent documents to obtain status.

A statute of limitation is generally only present on criminal proceedings. So while your 'friend' may escape prison, they can still (and will) deport him and give him a lifetime ban.

Aurora,
With the Servanos situation, what they did at that time was a very minor offense. It was the 1997 law that retroactively went back to their date of entry that made their situation an inadmissible alien. that is the rub and the problem with the 1997 law. the other problem is the lack of judicial review. Their defense is extremely limited to whether they did it or not without any indication of willful intent ro malicious conduct.

With the OP's situation, it is more than likely all events happened after the 1997 law was passed. Second, we need to look at intent why different name was used at the time and now at LPR status even though USCIS and FBI have both. Maybe we are dealing with TPS. But, the OP needs an attorney. There will be no answers here, only speculation, accusation, and tribulations.

My other question is how does the OP know they were falsified? Most people cannot tell the difference between obscured falsified documents and real ones, only blantly obvious ones.

quote:

Originally posted by Dixler:
Bankruptcy fraud and immigration fraud

Mr.X Filed bankruptcy and concealed assetts thus committing fraud.Trustee found it.
Later on it was revealed Mr.X got green card in 1986 under farm worker scheme by submitting fake papers.He came as a tourist and with the help of lawyer got green card.
What consequences Mr.X can have?

Just because you say its fraud, does not make it so. Fraud has been used in a very broad definition and, personally, makes a mockery out of the system. More importantly, it will be the details of how the person concealed the assets or was it a misinterpretation of the code? Or was it an asset that needed to be listed from the exclusion list, but was not. And what was the value of the asset. Was it significant or minimal or nominal? And if the trustee found out that assets were left out, then the bankruptcy would have been dismissed with prejudice.

As for your allegations in a farm worker scheme, what was the reason why different names were used. Or are we dealing with cultural anomalies when naming someone. YOu are playing fast and loose with legal definitions without giving any substantial facts, if you know them.

quote:

If Mr. X is a citizen not a lot can happen as the statute of limitations on Fraud appears to be up. If he is fits any of the deportation or loss of naturalization provisions, he can be pursued, however short of his being a terrorist or a war crime criminal it is unlikely that he can be prosecuted there. His bad act can be used against him however in court on other issues (like the bankruptcy fraud)

It will not matter if Mr X is a citizen or not, naturalized or native born. Fraud has no statue of limitations. The question is proving it, not stating it. If immigration fraud was committed and Mr. X was naturalized, he will lose his citizenship and deported to his country of origin. If Mr. X is native born, he will spend time in Federal Prison. This is of course based upon the fact that Mr. X is indicted, tried, and found guilty in a court of law.

quote:

As for the bankruptcy fraud, you do not give a date for that. Assuming that the statute of Limitations is not up, and the Trustee feels the mistakes were intentional, he can refer the case for prosecution by the US Attorney's office. If the office is a big one and busy and the "fraud" was not significant, then they may decide it would be a waste of scarce resources to pursue Mr. X. In that case, the state prosecutor could go after him but as this is a federal issue, they may decide not to waste their resources unless it will yield a positive result with either the public at large (whose tax dollars they spend) or gets them a favor with the Fed Prosecutors.

In most cases, bankruptcy fraud, if found by the trustee, is dealt with by the Bankruptcy judge before the case is dismissed. In rare circumstances, it is found after the fact that the bankruptcy has been discharged. In either case, it will be referred to DOJ for proseuction if they decide to take the case.

quote:

In other words, if he was a crook, and a big enough crook, someone will get him however if he is not a big enough crook, even though he's been caught red handed nothing may happen.

Fortunately for you however you can still pursue him civilly. In many jurisdictions Fraud carries a penalty of treble damages.Good luck

Not necessarily. Althgouh the $$$$ can help determine if the DA will take the case or not, it is also based on the factors of a likely conviction. There has to be solid evidence to indicate fraud, not speculation. If it is impossible to make that determination, the DA will not take up the case unless political pressure comes. Remember the North Carolina DA that has been disbarred because of his handling in the Duke Lacrosse affair?

Statute of limitations currently is either five or seven years for certain offences deemed "fraud" under INA.
When they failed to pass Immigration Reform last time, part of the "compromise package" was to increase the limits to ten or twenty years.
I don't know details cause I couldn't care less, not my situation, but heard of it on news and when browsing various attorneys websites about clients they represented and recall some Federal court decisions.
No one here will give you proper advise because it has to do with complex , often seemingly contradicting , sections of INA and every little detail makes a difference in outcome and most of the people here are either not very well versed in law or else , even if they are, they won't waste much time getting into minute details, it would be like fixing a rocket for free, no one will waste that much energy out of pure good will.
Same with tax issues. I have at times pressed some supposedly well versed "tax" guys here with actual written Codes under IRS and proven them to be at fault. And I am not a "tax guy".

You need to see Immigration Attorney or whoever is in profession of representing the clients in similar to yours circumstances.
Most of these are good people here but they know little about actual governing law, so you need to see a professional if you really need help with your case.

Good luck,
E.

quote:

Originally posted by OldE:
Statute of limitations currently is either five or seven years for certain offences deemed "fraud" under INA.
When they failed to pass Immigration Reform last time, part of the "compromise package" was to increase the limits to ten or twenty years.
I don't know details cause I couldn't care less, not my situation, but heard of it on news and when browsing various attorneys websites about clients they represented and recall some Federal court decisions.
No one here will give you proper advise because it has to do with complex , often seemingly contradicting , sections of INA and every little detail makes a difference in outcome and most of the people here are either not very well versed in law or else , even if they are, they won't waste much time getting into minute details, it would be like fixing a rocket for free, no one will waste that much energy out of pure good will.
Same with tax issues. I have at times pressed some supposedly well versed "tax" guys here with actual written Codes under IRS and proven them to be at fault. And I am not a "tax guy".

You need to see Immigration Attorney or whoever is in profession of representing the clients in similar to yours circumstances.
Most of these are good people here but they know little about actual governing law, so you need to see a professional if you really need help with your case.

Good luck,
E.

OK OldE, where in the IRC can you find the statue of limitations?

Where did I say anything about finding "statue of limitations in the IRC" ?

quote:

Originally posted by OldE:
Where did I say anything about finding "statue of limitations in the IRC" ?

I asked you a question, will you answer?

Why should I waste my time finding it, Hudson ?

If you have tax issues I would suggest you the same as to OP, to go and see a good tax attorney ,they will tell you if there are any statues of limitations under IRC.

Good luck,
E.

quote:

Originally posted by OldE:
Why should I waste my time finding it, Hudson ?

this means you do not know the answer. Which is contrary to what you said:

quote:

Posted by OldE 05-10-2008 09:48 AM Same with tax issues. I have at times pressed some supposedly well versed "tax" guys here with actual written Codes under IRS and proven them to be at fault.

You alluded that you know something that most, as you said it, "so called tax experts" do not know. This iw what I am getting at and why I posted the question. So again, will you give the answer to my question or will you continue to play on words.

quote:

If you have tax issues I would suggest you the same as to OP, to go and see a good tax attorney ,they will tell you if there are any statues of limitations under IRC.

Good luck,
E.

Well, so did Speed and myself. All you did was regurgitate other people's posts without giving full credit. This is called plagiarism.

Are we back to old times ?
So, let me recall what is the script..
Uh, but we both know it too well, so why go the same old beaten path again?

Just to make sure and set the record straight:
"Same with tax issues. I have at times pressed some supposedly well versed "tax" guys here with actual written Codes under IRS and proven them to be at fault".

Where above did I say anything about statue of limitations under IRC?
Yes, I did discuss other issues here under IRC and proved those arguing with me at fault, per Federal Tax Codes I cited.
But, as I said, let's not get back to this useless "I said, He said , She said" kind of stuff.
I couldn't care less about some "Naija" to waste my time arguing over it.

Just read carefully what I write and don't make up things that I didn't.

Be Cool!
E.

Thank you guys for your imputs.....this guy is not under a final order of deportation for using document fruad. He was not charge for document fruad. He will see his attorney soon and this is just to give him what he will ask his lawyer.

quote:

Are we back to old times?

Back to what?

quote:

but we both know it too well

Are you talking to yourself again?

quote:

So, let me recall what is the script.

What movie are you talking about?

quote:

Just to make sure and set the record straight:

How can you set a record straight? You are not making sense.

quote:

Where above did I say anything about statue of limitations under IRC?

What happened to records and scripts. You keep changing the subject.

quote:

Yes, I did discuss other issues here under IRC and proved those arguing with me at fault, per Federal Tax Codes I cited.

How can one be under the IRC and still talk about it.

quote:

But, as I said, let's not get back to this useless "I said, He said , She said" kind of stuff

so now you keep changing genders. Are you a shemale?

quote:

I couldn't care less about some "Naija" to waste my time arguing over it.

so why are you posting this?

quote:

Just read carefully what I write and don't make up things that I didn't.

Read what you wrote?