Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USC are a "prohibited source" to the USCIS

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

  • USC are a "prohibited source" to the USCIS

    So a USCIS has rock solid proof that his/her spouse is commiting marriage fraud, So he/she takes it to the USCIS. They turn their back on him/her. Why? Well one reason is below. It is a speech on VAWA.

    SPEECH OF
    HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
    OF MICHIGAN
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2005


    Immigration enforcement agents and government officials covered by this section must not initiate contact with abusers, call abusers as witnesses or rely on information furnished by or derived from abusers to apprehend, detain and attempt to remove victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and trafficking, as prohibited by section 384 of IIRIRA. In determining whether a person furnishing information is a prohibited source, primary evidence should include, but not be limited to, court records, government databases, affidavits from law enforcement officials, and previous decisions by DHS or Department of Justice personnel. Other credible evidence must also be considered. Government officials are encouraged to consult with the specially trained VAWA unit in making determinations under the special ``any credible evidence'' standard. I believe that all investigation and enforcement of these provisions should be done by the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Justice Department. For consistency, these cases need to be centralized in one division and I believe that this office is best equipped to address these cases.

    Nothing like centralizing everything so they can pull the strings and filter out exculpitory evidence. It's a rigged game.

  • #2
    So a USCIS has rock solid proof that his/her spouse is commiting marriage fraud, So he/she takes it to the USCIS. They turn their back on him/her. Why? Well one reason is below. It is a speech on VAWA.

    SPEECH OF
    HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.
    OF MICHIGAN
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2005


    Immigration enforcement agents and government officials covered by this section must not initiate contact with abusers, call abusers as witnesses or rely on information furnished by or derived from abusers to apprehend, detain and attempt to remove victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and trafficking, as prohibited by section 384 of IIRIRA. In determining whether a person furnishing information is a prohibited source, primary evidence should include, but not be limited to, court records, government databases, affidavits from law enforcement officials, and previous decisions by DHS or Department of Justice personnel. Other credible evidence must also be considered. Government officials are encouraged to consult with the specially trained VAWA unit in making determinations under the special ``any credible evidence'' standard. I believe that all investigation and enforcement of these provisions should be done by the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Justice Department. For consistency, these cases need to be centralized in one division and I believe that this office is best equipped to address these cases.

    Nothing like centralizing everything so they can pull the strings and filter out exculpitory evidence. It's a rigged game.

    Comment


    • #3
      I wonder how you define "rock solid proof" on one committing marriage fraud. A person may believe it is "rock solid," but evidence analysis may indicate otherwise. So, who is right and who is wrong in this case?
      "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

      Comment


      • #4
        Anullment papers on the grounds the immigrant spouse was married to another man when entering the US on a K-1 visa and then married her sponser thus having two concurent husbands. True case. The VSC granted her self petition and evidence of that was a letter accidentally sent to the "ex-husband" saying her petition as an abused "spouse" of a USC has been approved. Rather good example of why BOTH sides should be heard in these cases.

        Something you wrote Hudson in another thread about the VAWA petition was not a judicial trial thus not needing equal representation. It maybe so that it is not a judicial trial but it does have consequences of a court trial, a persons reputation within Federal files is at stake, Plus and this is a big one, the lack of safeguards to the one being judged and the rewards to the self petitioner make the USC a prime target of being maliciously set up on false charges to support the spouses self petition.

        Comment


        • #5
          This is exactly what I am talking about. It is rigged and the victims can not do anything about it. It is disgusting.

          Comment


          • #6
            Seriously in a relationship between a man and a woman how many times are there other statements from third parties? You only know what they allow you to see. The fact is that the basis for many VAWA petitions is as follows: 1) a police report where they find no abuse marks other than maybe a scratch on the arm (that could be self-inflicted), the report indicates that the other party is not there and the police officer notes that no other signs of disturbance appear in the apartment 2) an order of protection that you can get without the other party being notified that someone is trying to swear an order of protection against them 3) an affidavit from the person who has a vested interest in making the claim 4) an affidavit from a relative who also has a vested interest in upholding the petitioner's claim. The fact is that when these petitions used to be adjudicated in the local offices instead of in a centralized location in the Service Center that upwards of 85% were denied. Why do you think the power was taken from the local offices?

            Comment


            • #7
              "Unless of course it is someone working in cahoots with a fraudster"

              Immigration attorneys will advise that the "abused" go to certain psychiatrists and psychologists to get put on anti-depresents and get a report that this person is suffering from "abused person's syndrome". This plus a well written statement is sometimes all it takes. I had an immigration attorney tell me that is her approach with men who come to her to file abuse petitions. I actually seen this approach being used with a Russian women. This Russian women came into another immigration attorney's office on a consultation visit. I and my film crew were just finishing our interview with this attorney and packing up when the attorney came to us and said the Russian woman agreed to alow us to film (HD digital actually) her being interview. The long and short of the interview was that her husband was not abusive perhaps just somewhat of a **** but the immigration attorney advised this woman to go to a psychologist to start the evidence gathering for the evidence for her I-360.

              What I notice in case after case there is a wall between the accused and the USCIS. The accused has a very difficult time to get the USCIS to listen. When they do make contact what they give to the USCIS is lost or not recorded.

              Comment


              • #8
                What is needed is a liason office for the accused. Someplace that the accused can communicate and someplace they trust. People caught in these situation usually are not on their best behavior. Most everyone says something they shouldn't say. This should be understood a something that is natural and not indicative of a person's overall behavior. This government laison office should take this into an account and do what the accusers immigration attorneys do and send a 'gone over' report to the Vermont Service Center VAWA unit. This would present some balance to the one sided situation. Better yet would be a citizens advocate group handling the duties of the laison office.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Like I have said before on this board I am filming a documentary on this subject. It is made up of a series of stories that help the audience build their knowledge of this distasteful subject. It opens with an American women being a victim of Marriage fraud. The second story which I just finished editing is of an older USC Ukrainian man accused of abuse by his second wife from Russia. Speaking out on his behalf is his USC Ukrainian first ex-wife, their grown son, the wife of his second wife's boyfriend and a woman lawyer involved in the case. I think you can see where I am going with this. It takes fire to fight fire.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Quote:
                    "One thing I wonder about is if a person is accused of this and even if false what detriment do they realistically face? Will they possibly be fired from their job, lose their professional license, denied a visa? Or are hands being wringed for nothing. Do you have any info on what happened afterwards to the falsly accused?"

                    The damage done to the USC is not with the Vermont Service Center but all the steps immigrants go through to gather evidence to support their self petitions. The most dangerous time for a USC is right after he mentions the word "divorce". Usually something happens within a week or so involving dialing 9*1*1. What happens is the immigrant after hearing the word divorce consults with her advisor "friends" and the ball starts rolling.

                    The only thing as far as the Feds go 'that I know of' is it causes a Red Flag at immigration if the USC decides to sponser another immigrant fiancee/spouse. Many do. The counsolor officials at the embassy can be quite tough. Usually the petition makes it that far. After all the USCIS gets to collect it's fees all along the way...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There was a man falsley accused of abuse for VAWA reasons. In a small town where they both lived, she got a TRO against him without any evidence whatsoever. He was a plumber so he obviously was all over the town doing jobs and never knowing where she was would always be accidently "violating" the TRO. One day when he was "violating" the TRO (probably a set up) she called the police and with no proof that he was even aware that she was around, the police showed up and shot him 50 times until he was dead. He was unarmed. He obviously didn't care about her since he had already been back to Russia to find love again.

                      I think this would qualify as a worst case scenario.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        SonofMichael, I think you are referring to the Frank Sheridan case. I heard he WAS armed and took a pot shot at the police officer who was coming to arrest him.

                        The background on this case was that his Russian wife Katerina was arrested fir stabbing him. While she was in jail some local women's advocates came to her rescue by working a deal with the police. They had her call her husband and pretend she wanted to get back together with him. He came down to the police station and paid her bail. Around $3000. The police let her and her women accomplices out the back door.

                        Frank ended up defrauding her of a sum of money (payback?) in which law enforcement on his tail. She went off to her new life. Anyway someone wrote this as a possible analysis of why things happened the way they did.


                        He wasn't thinking straight. Here is my best guess at his mental state.
                        - He was nuts about her. He got jealous, then he got angry, probably because he realized that she had used him.
                        - She stabbed him. She could have killed him. That's a big deal.
                        - The criminal justice system, together with women's advocates tricked him into posting bail for her by lying to him, pretending again that she loved him.
                        - He was left utterly alone, raging in his home, literally stabbed in the chest, knowing that he could trust absolutely nobody. The police had participated in tricking him.
                        - He was out of his mind with rage, shame, and paranoia. He was left with nothing to get his self-respect back except to find out what she was really doing. He found her married to another man. He had been used, his savings drained, his heart broken, with a literal chest wound and scar.
                        - So, he decided to get his money back. Notice the amount that he defrauded her of. It was almost exactly the amount he had spent to bail her out of jail. Want to bet that she didn't jump bail on him so he couldn't get it back?
                        - Now, not also that IF he had posted bail on her, that made him her jailer, legally. He was, therefore, legally empowered to use any force necessary to return her to prison. He was also legally empowered to watch her, and track her movements as necessary to enforce it. Somehow I doubt that was brought up in any hearings. Probably, he did not have a decent attorney. They are hard to find.
                        - He goes on a trip, perhaps to try to find another woman, perhaps to seek revenge on all Russian women, who knows. When he gets back, he is arrested. He is already raging, out of his mind, and paranoid. Getting arrested for getting his money back from the vicious ***** that nearly stabbed him to death, finding himself painted as an evil monster was the last straw.
                        - He was packing, perhaps to leave town, who knows. He sees another cop driving up, and probably he had already made a decision that he was not going to let them win. In his rage and hurt, he shot at the poor cop who happened by, when he really wanted to shoot her.
                        - Bang. He's dead. He was probably relieved to die at that point.

                        Look, men and women, both - they commit murder for far less than this, regularly. People kill just out of jealousy. Someone who has never been seriously shafted has no idea what would go on in their own head. Rage and totally justified paranoia - it's a terrible combination. Put someone there, they'll get themselves killed. I've known other men who came very close. But they had good friends who stayed with them and talked them down, talked them through it.

                        "There but for the grace of god go I."


                        I understand it was 25 bullets not 50...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          That is the story, but no gun was ever found; and why shoot the guy 50 times? There were something like 20-25 bullets in him. This guy was murdered.

                          And lets stop confusing jealousy wth justifiable rage. What a joke it is to say that someone who gets angry at being victimized is just doing it out of "jealousy". They are angry and have every right to be.

                          But thanks for finding the story. It shows that the system will gun down victims in cold blood just so a foreign criminal can get a green card.

                          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