Us Consulates (embassies?) Will No Longer Accept I-130 Applications.

[Gumballl]

I received this information below from a trustworthy source (my cousin). She is an immigration lawyer in NYC. Anyhow, apparently the US Consulates have been ordered to reject any pending I-130 forms that have not been filed via the USCIS.

Hopefully this post will serve as a "heads-up" for anyone wishing to petition for a visa for their spouse or fiance.

Here's the info:

E.O. 12958: N/A

TAGS: CVIS, CMGT

SUBJECT: REFERRAL OF ALL I-130 PETITIONS TO USCIS SERVICE

OFFICES FOR ADJUDICATION

REF: 03 STATE 146632

1. Summary: CA and USCIS have completed a thorough

analysis of the Adam Walsh Protection act and come to the

conclusion that posts must cease accepting or adjudicating

any I-130 petition for family-based immigrant status that

was not adjudicated by USCIS, and inform any individual

wishing to file such a petition that it is necessary to

file it with the appropriate USCIS office and refrain from

assisting further. This change is effective immediately.

In any case in which a post has already accepted an I-130

from a petitioner but has not yet issued a visa, post must

forward the petition to the appropriate USCIS overseas

office as "not clearly approvable." We are working with

USCIS and will provide subsequent guidance on processing

I-600 petitions and previously approved I-130 petitions.

CA recognizes that this change may cause difficulties and

encourages posts to advise their resident American citizen

communities that new procedures are in place so that they

may plan ahead. End summary.

2. On July 27, 2006, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and

Safety Act (Adam Walsh Act), Pub. L. No. 109-248, became

law. Section 402 of that Act amends INA 204(a)(1) and

101(a)(15)(K), rendering ineligible to file a petition for

immigrant status under INA 203(a) (I-130 or I-600), or for

nonimmigrant K status (I-129F), any petitioner who has

been convicted of a "specified offense against a minor,"

defined in section 111 of the Adam Walsh Act as an offense

involving any of the following:

BEGIN QUOTE

A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian)

involving kidnapping.

B ) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian)

involving false imprisonment.

C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.

D) Use in a sexual performance.

E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.

F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of title

18, United States Code.

G) Possession, production, or distribution of child

pornography.

H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use

of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.

I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against

a minor.

END QUOTE

Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act provides that the bar

against filing a petition because of such a conviction

will not apply if the Secretary of Homeland Security, in

his sole and unreviewable discretion, determines that the

petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary.

3. USCIS has provided interim guidance to its

adjudicators to search its IBIS database for criminal

history record information regarding USPER petitioners in

family-based immigrant status cases and K nonimmigrant

status cases. If there is an IBIS hit for one of the

specified offenses against a minor, the USCIS field office

must issue a Request for Evidence for all police arrest

records and court disposition documents, and must schedule

the petitioner for fingerprinting.

4. Consular officers do not have access to criminal

history record information regarding USPER petitioners and

therefore are unable to determine whether a petitioner has

a conviction for a specified offense against a minor that

renders the petitioner ineligible under INA

204(a)(1)(A)(viii) or 204(a)(1)(B )(i)(II) to file a

petition. The limited extract information in CLASS

downloaded from the FBI's National Crime Information

Center relates solely to aliens, and INA 105 provides for

the use of such information "for the purpose of

determining whether or not a visa applicant or applicant

for admission has a criminal history record indexed in any

such file."

5. In the absence of access to information that is

essential to the determination of whether a petitioner is

eligible to file a petition for immigrant status in a

family-based classification, consular officers are unable

to take any action on an unadjudicated I-130 petition.

Rather, posts must advise individuals who seek to file

such a petition that they should submit it directly to the

appropriate USCIS office. USCIS maintains an office

locator page, based on place of residence, on its website

at

https://egov.immigration.gov/crisgwi/go?action=offices.typ

e&OfficeLocator.office_type=OS. In cases in which a post

has already accepted an I-130 for filing but has not yet

issued an immigrant visa, the consular officer must

consider the petition "not clearly approvable" because of

the inability to fulfill INA 204(a)(1)'s requirement for a

determination of the petitioner's eligibility to file.

Pursuant to 9 FAM 42.41 N4.2-3(d) and 8 CFR 204.1(e)(3),

posts must forward all such I-130 petitions that petioners

filed at post, with all supporting documents, to the

appropriate USCIS office. To reiterate, consular officers

are no longer authorized to accept or adjudicate I-130

petitions at post under any circumstances. 9 FAM Appendix

N 200 is being revised accordingly. We are preparing

press guidance, which posts will be able to access at

http://intranet.ca.state.gov/PPAffairs/ppaffairs.htm.

6. We are requesting clarification from USCIS regarding

the validity, for Adam Walsh Act criminal record check

purposes, of the fingerprint clearance procedures at the

time of I-600 processing that are specified in Reftel

(SOP-21) and 9 FAM 42.21 N13.3(d), as well as the

applicability of section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act to

petitions for family-based immigrant status or K

nonimmigrant status that were approved prior to the act's

effective date. Further guidance will follow our receipt

of the USCIS clarification.

7. Minimize considered.

RICE

BT

#7956

[Gumballl]

By the way, I did not add the smileys to the OP. The TV forum software is interpreting the parenthesis and other characters to generate the smileys.

[sbk]

By the way, I did not add the smileys to the OP. The TV forum software is interpreting the parenthesis and other characters to generate the smileys.

Fixed it for you, put a space after the b and then you have this b ) instead of this

[fxm88]

I don't believe this changes anything in Thailand: the US Embassy in Bangkok has never accepted these petitions and it has always been necessary to file it with the Bangkok USCIS office, correct?

[Gumballl]

I don't believe this changes anything in Thailand: the US Embassy in Bangkok has never accepted these petitions and it has always been necessary to file it with the Bangkok USCIS office, correct?

In the past, a US Embassy could accept the I-130 if the applicant (sponsor) was residing in the foreign country. If the applicant was residing in the US, then they had to go through the USCIS (formerly the INS).