Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HELP

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

  • HELP

    I WORKED FOR A COMPANY FOR ABOUT 3 DAYS, WHEN I FILLED OUT MY W2 FORMS I ACCIDENTLY CHECKED A BOX WHICH SATED I WAS A CITIZEN BUT I AM ACTUALY A PERMANENT RSIDENT, I AM ONLY 20 AND DID NOT BOTHER TO RECONCILE THE MISTAKE BECAUSE OF THE SHOORT AMOUNT OF TIME I WORKED FOR THE COMPANY, I JUST FILLED OUT AN APLLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP, WILL THIS AFFECT ME AND IF SO HOW CAN I RECTIFY THIS PROBLEM BEFORE MY INTERVIEW PLEASE HELP

  • #2
    I WORKED FOR A COMPANY FOR ABOUT 3 DAYS, WHEN I FILLED OUT MY W2 FORMS I ACCIDENTLY CHECKED A BOX WHICH SATED I WAS A CITIZEN BUT I AM ACTUALY A PERMANENT RSIDENT, I AM ONLY 20 AND DID NOT BOTHER TO RECONCILE THE MISTAKE BECAUSE OF THE SHOORT AMOUNT OF TIME I WORKED FOR THE COMPANY, I JUST FILLED OUT AN APLLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP, WILL THIS AFFECT ME AND IF SO HOW CAN I RECTIFY THIS PROBLEM BEFORE MY INTERVIEW PLEASE HELP

    Comment


    • #3
      Here's the issue, listen and LISTEN WELL.
      If you are receiving MORE BENEFITS or a BIGGER refund because of the false claim then you're in trouble. But if you did not receive any different treatment because of this distinction, you should be fine. Why? Because no benefit was obtained by fraud.
      Say you leave the country and go shopping in Mexico or Canada for a couple hours or even a couple days. No criminal offenses were committed during your trip. You're an LPR and decide to enter the US again by claiming citizenship. As an LPR you're entitled to re-enter the U.S., you're not seeking admission. (Fleuti Doctrine) No benefit or purpose is served by the false claim. (Toro-Romero v. Ashcroft).

      Comment


      • #4
        Claiming to be a U.S. citizen when you are not a U.S. citizen is a serious offense which can result in a PERMANENT bar from the U.S.

        Like everything else though, it will depend on whether immigration chooses to enforce the law.

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh yeah, if you lie on your N-400 about your little mistake it will become a big mistake called fraud.

          That benefit thing that Houston mentioned may be hard to prove. I mean whose to say you were not hired in the first place because you claimed to be citizen?? Just some food for thought.

          I think you will be ok as long you tell the truth.

          Comment


          • #6
            A violation under 18 USC 911 is not the same as the violation contemplated under INA. There's several differences:
            - A violation under 18 USC 911 requires "knowing" as an element of the offense. There's no such requirement under INA.
            - A Violation under 18 USC 911 does not require intent. INA requires intent of obtaining a benefit under the act, or any state or federal law.
            Furthermore, the court in Toro-Romero v. Ashcroft recognized that BIA erred in not considering a conviction for a CIMT because that would have rendered the alien inadmissible, making the false claim the base for his admission. However, this conviction was ignored and the deportation was related only to the false claim. The Court of Appeals recognized two issues here. First, that Toro-Romero was not inadmissible if the conviction was ignored and second, that if he was not inadmissible, and entitled to re-enter as LPR, the false claim served no purpose or benefit, therefore is not enough to support deportation.

            Comment


            • #7
              Again, if he was hired because he said he was a U.S. citizen isn't that a benefit? I admit the prosecutor would have to have a hard on to use that course but it would be hard to disprove.

              Comment


              • #8
                When the job is available to anyone authorized to work, hiring based on citizenship is a violation of the law of equal opportunity.

                However, if the job is only available to citizens, then yes, it is a benefit and the false claim will prevail.
                If the prosecutor argues the defendant was hired because of a particular citizenship and the job is available to all who are authorized to work in the U.S. then it would require the employer to testify he or she is discriminating against aliens, I don't think that would be a wise course of action.

                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