Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

worked illegally,recently married to a US citizen

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    - to sum up:

    1. I-485A and $1000 fee is irrelevant for blondiecint's case

    2. spouses of US citizens are eligible to adjust status to permanent resident even if they have worked without authorisation and/or overstayed visa

    From the above, blondiecint, you should be OK and don't need to pay extra $1000.

    However -
    if the SSN you used belongs to another person, you may be charged with misrepresenting yourself in order to obtain benefits that otherwise wouldn't be available to you (work). Worst case scenario is that the SS number belongs to a person who is US citizen. If those charges come up, being a spouse of US citizen doesn't help.

    So, in order to find out fully what you may expect, contact a lawyer. And check if the SSN you used belongs to somebody else!

    And yes, be honest. Otherwise you just dig a deeper hole for yourself.

    Comment


    • #17
      The use of the SSN could be more complicated than it looks. It may or may not be a CIMT, some circuits now apply the logic of the 9th circuit in Beltran-Tirado after taking a closer look at what Congress really intended.
      There's also some construction issues that relate to the use of the words "knowingly" and "willingly" together as required by some circuits. More and more courts are now reading some subjective intent to "do something the law forbids", that is, acting with a criminal mind. Obviously, trying to obtain, by fraud or misrepresentation, a benefit that is not available to the person would be evidence of such intent if the person KNOWS about such restrictions and attempts to break the law (therefore acting "willingly") by consciously taking specific steps (i.e. misrepresentations; acting "knowingly").
      This is NOT legal advice.

      Comment


      • #18
        Hmm.. Actually, following the logic used in Beltrain-Tirado, the essence that decided the case lay in the distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se. Or, a wrong committed only because it is prohibited by statute rather than one that is inherently wrong and evil-intentioned.

        Using a fake SSN, it seems, falls under the first category, when the fake SSN is used to gain employment and legally report one's earnings and tax obligations, which is generally not inherently wrong nor considered a CIMT.

        The BIA recognised the same distinction between the two motivations also in Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 225, 227 (BIA 1980)
        The above is simply an opinion. Your mileage may vary. For immigration issues, please consult an immigration attorney.

        Comment


        • #19
          Also, Beltran-Tirado is grounded on the distinction made by Congress inside the statute itself, regarding the conduct of aliens and SSN's.
          This particular prohibition is not a regulatory offense, not a general intent crime, but rather a specific intent crime. Crimes of specific intent require, by definition, some degree of criminal intent to be alleged by indictment and proven beyond the reasonable doubt.

          Comment


          • #20
            blondiecint must be very confused now... :-)

            Comment


            • #21
              umm... I understand that this isn't Legal advice,... but thank-u for hearing me out nonetheless.
              OK. Here's the "kicker"... I started working when I was a *minor* at age 16-17 and I obtained the fake Social thru my parents... I did as I was told and got a job. I was told tid-bits of information here and there and by the time I put it all together I was already working. I stopped working when I was about 20 (in the beginning of 2004).
              I filled the job application with a school ID card and the fake social... (which I THINK belongs to a deceased person).
              Will this information change the case?

              Comment


              • #22
                I am new to this board and have a somewhat similar situation except I am the U.S. citizen and my Canadian husband has stayed and worked here illegally, using a fake SSN and Green Card. He has also consistently used a "preferred" name other than his legal name (i.e., the name on his unexpired/valid Canadian passport, Canadian Driver's License, and Birth Certificate), both socially and professionally for most of his adult life. We married in 2000 using his "preferred" name; and just recently again in 2006 using his "legal" name. (Yes, I was blind and stupid - I did not know this.) That all said, it is in fact a bona fide marriage and we're only now going to begin the process for his K-3 Visa. I want to complete the I-130 and G-325As with full disclosure of his employment history and other name used, but he is afraid. I am more afraid NOT to disclose this. Our joint lease is in his "preferred" name, as are our utility bills, one joint bank acct., plus I filed tax returns using his "preferred" name. I'm also not sure whether to and how to present both marriages in the initial paperwork, or if I should wait until the interview. The earlier marriage makes him eligible for immediate AOS; and the later marriage gives him the two-year conditional residence requiring the I-751 90 days prior to expiration, etc. etc. I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. I will hire an attorney if that is my only hope of fixing this mess, but thought that if I could complete the paperwork myself correctly and honestly, I could fix this without going into debt. He has not worked since Nov. 2005 and the last time he was in Canada was earlier this year from Feb. 2006 to May 2006. When he returned in May, he entered the country legally, without getting the I-94 (Canadians can bypass this step, at least currently). Is this a new one for the books or what? Any similar case histories you can refer me to?

                Comment


                • #23
                  First off, any person may use any name they want as long as it's not for fraudulent purposes. "Some actual harm or injury was contemplated by the offender." The lease shouldn't be a problem as long as the person has never knowingly acted in a way that could have resulted in harm to the landlord. However, failure to disclose the assumed name in the application COULD render the conduct as fraudulent. One could argue that the applicant was using the assumend name to work illegally preventing the government from learning about such activity and taking the necesary actions. Remember that intent to defraud may be proven by circumstancial evidence and all actions taken by the suspect before, on and after the date of the offense... Remember 2 things:
                  - You have the right to use any name you want for legit purposes but NOT for fraudulent purposes.
                  - You MUST disclose all relevant facts to CIS.

                  This is NOT legal advice and you shouldn't construct this opinion as guidance. You should consult with a qualified attorney.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    So you are saying that marraige to a USC overrides working w/o permission, being an undocumented alien in the US for 6 yrs? This is my husband, learning English, paying taxes w/ ITIN number- has a state license (now expired 2 mos), has been credit checked and given credit, owns a 2 vehicles, has started a corporation, we have a 2 yr old daughter....except for fines, can he really just apply for AOS and be given it?...or will he be deported back to his country for 10 years? I'd really like to know- cause this man is a worker and a contributor- but will soon be wrecked because of his current lack of status in this country.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      If the person entered with inspection but overstayed then yes, he may apply for AOS. However, if he entered illegally (jumped the border) then he cannot adjust. You should contact a lawyer if you have questions, this is not legal advice.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        does anyone know if filing for AOS under 245i also forgives illegal work or does one have to prove hardship etc?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          LIFE relief is now extinct and covers only those who filed before the "expiration date" and complied with the physical presence requirement. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens do not need LIFE when it comes to working without authorization.
                          -THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE-

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Houston
                            I'm referring to someone who filed 245i before 30 april 2001 and was wondering if the forgiveness for illegal work which is afforded immediate relatives also applies to 245i beneficiaries

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              ***p

                              Comment

                              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                              Home Page

                              Immigration Daily

                              Archives

                              Processing times

                              Immigration forms

                              Discussion board

                              Resources

                              Blogs

                              Twitter feed

                              Immigrant Nation

                              Attorney2Attorney

                              CLE Workshops

                              Immigration books

                              Advertise on ILW

                              EB-5

                              移民日报

                              About ILW.COM

                              Connect to us

                              Questions/Comments

                              SUBSCRIBE

                              Immigration Daily



                              Working...
                              X