Misrepresentation of Applicant Not Applied

By: Dennis E. Chua, Esq.

An applicant for adjustment of status who commits fraud or misrepresentation when applying for an immigration benefit will be deemed inadmissible and his adjustment application will be denied. However, the applicant may have his fraud or misrepresentation waived if he has a US citizen or legal permanent resident spouse or parent and that qualifying relative will suffer extreme hardship if the applicant is ordered removed from the United States.

The more common cases of fraud being committed are: (1) using a false passport or visa in entering the United States; (2) applying for political asylum and the facts relied upon in the application are not true; (3) Misrepresenting one's true intention when being admitted to the United States, i.e. a tourist visa holder who intends to work in the United States;(4) filing a CSS/LULAC application by making it appear that the applicant has entered the United States before 1982.

A CSS/LULAC applicant who falsely misrepresents his entry date may not be subject to the waiver requirements before his subsequent adjustment application can be approved because of the confidentiality provisions of the law. To illustrate, we tell you the story of Marco. Marco entered the United States in 1986. He was enticed by an immigration fixer to file for legalization under CSS/LULAC knowing that he was never qualified for it. The fixer made it appear that he entered through the Mexican border and that his entry date was on 1981. Since he was not able to show that he was unlawfully present prior to 1982, the government denied his legalization application under CSS/LULAC. Marco eventually married Catherine, a US citizen. Catherine filed an immigrant petition for Marco who concurrently filed an adjustment application based on this. This time, Marco truthfully indicated in his application that he entered the United States (USCIS) in 1986 as a tourist in San Francisco. The US Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his application for adjustment of status after he filed for a waiver. The USCIS ruled that Catherine will not suffer extreme hardship if Marco is ordered removed from the United States. On appeal to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), the AAO reversed the decision of the USCIS denying Marco's application for adjustment of status. The AAO held that Marco does not need to file a waiver because of the confidentiality requirements of the LULAC law. The AAO then remanded the case back to the USCIS. The USCIS eventually approved Marco's application for adjustment of status.

Due to the confidentiality provisions of the law, any information collected due to the filing of a LULAC application, even if the statements stated therein are not entirely true, may not be used against an applicant in any subsequent application made before the government.

Atty. Dennis E. Chua is a partner in The Law Firm of Chua Tinsay and Vega (CTV) - a full service law firm with offices in San Francisco, San Diego and Manila. The information presented in this article is for general information only and is not, nor intended to be, formal legal advice nor the formation of an attorney-client relationship. The CTV attorneys will be holding regular free legal clinics at the Max's Restaurant in Vallejo, California. Call or e-mail CTV for an in-person or phone consultation to discuss your particular situation and/or how their services may be retained at (415) 495-8088; (619) 955-6277; Dchua@ctvattys.com
Home |  About Us |  Overview |  FAQs |  Articles |  Visa Bulletin |  Case Status |  Contact Us |