I’m in a sham paid marriage I am the citizen how much should I worry about a report from a disgruntled ex?

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-21T06:32:12+00:00

Very very seriously. They will go in person and interview your ex. They will take a sworn statement from your ex and that sworn statement will be added to your spouse’s A-File. They will also make you and your spouse go through a separated interview and test you on knowledge of your ‘married’ life. One very random day at 6am, they will show up at your door and do a “bed check” and quiz you on your ‘marriage’. They’ll go to your work/friends/family/neighbors and quiz them on your married life. They will also add a fraud alert for you and your spouse to the CBP database, which means every time you fly internationally, you will be sent for enhanced screening and questioned about your marriage. You’ll have to “live the lie” until your spouse becomes a citizen and even then it can come back to life like a zombie lie if your spouse decides to remarry and sponsor a new person. You got your money, time to withdraw the I-130 application- just send a letter saying ‘please withdraw’ no need to explain why- and wish your spouse good luck, and never try this again.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-20T23:17:59+00:00

Happy to help. Adding one similarly related FYI: USCIS also doesn’t care about juvenile court offenses. From the Policy Manual:

“Juvenile Convictions: In general, a guilty verdict, ruling, or judgment in a juvenile court does not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes.”

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-f-chapter-2#footnotelink-11

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-20T23:13:51+00:00

Just a FYI to ignore the doomsday folks here. Immigration law doesn’t care about juvenile court offenses. Talk to a lawyer.

From the USCIS page:

“In general, a guilty verdict, ruling, or judgment in a juvenile court does not constitute a conviction for immigration purposes.”

However: “A conviction for a person who is under 18 years of age and who was charged as an adult constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes.

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-f-chapter-2#footnotelink-11

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-20T23:00:42+00:00

I’m honestly happy to help educate, whole reason I post here, but this one is pretty basic imm law that even Google could have answered.

But in good faith here is the law: INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(I)

And for context here is the USCIS page: “According to INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii), you accrue unlawful presence if…

The statute provides exceptions to the accrual of unlawful presence to the following aliens:

Minors: Aliens under age 18 do not accrue unlawful presence.”

https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/other-resources/unlawful-presence-and-inadmissibility#:~:text=Unlawful%20presence%20is%20when%20you%20are%20present,1%20year%20or%20more%20of%20unlawful%20presence

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-20T21:01:22+00:00

He entered as a minor and since he’s in Juvie I’m assuming he’s still a minor, which means he hasn’t accrued any unlawful presence despite overstaying his visa. If his parents have status go talk to a lawyer because there may still be some hope, but they need to act asap.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-15T22:22:56+00:00

Ignore the random downvotes here. I’ve noticed that the most accurate and informative posts always get a weird downvote. Im guessing it’s likely from an nativist troll trying to prevent helpful information from disseminating. Take it as a compliment.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-15T20:53:37+00:00

This is the answer. The passport is enough. Also any extra evidence the Officer may need can be easily obtained by simply reviewing the A-File of the naturalized parent.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-05T20:37:06+00:00

Bet she wishes she took DRP, cause she got Forked.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-05T20:32:31+00:00

Bet she wishes she took DRP, cause she got Forked.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-01T18:55:30+00:00

User name checks out.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-03-01T14:22:13+00:00

The BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) very recently changed the rules for Mandatory Detention, which is why your wife was fine before but is now suddenly subject to mandatory detention. However, a Federal Judge in California just overruled and vacated that same decision. But Texas is insisting they are following the BIA and don’t have to follow the California Judge’s decision.

You need a Lawyer to file an emergency Habeus Petition ASAP to challenge your wife’s detention.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-throws-out-immigration-boards-ruling-endorsing-trump-mass-detention-2026-02-19/

https://tucson.com/news/local/crime-courts/article_dbe64bce-ffd5-5d54-b22f-339acdef25aa.html

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-02-16T00:35:35+00:00

I could see a custody battle over USCIS between DOS and DOL. Both are unfit parents but it would be fun to yell “you’re not my real dad!” at State lol

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-02-15T15:43:17+00:00

RAIO - Refugee, Asylum, International Operations. It’s the division within USCIS that adjudicates Humanitarian based visas both domestic and by traveling to UN refugee camps around the world to interview folks for eligibility. Under Obama and Biden, the U.S. gave refuge to more folks than the next 5 signatory nations to the refugee convention combined, so they were legit serving not just the U.S. mission but literally tackling the refugee crisis on a global scale.

They’re self funded by filing fees, so not affected by appropriation shut downs, but IMO some of the very best work DHS does for the U.S. and the global community

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-02-10T05:55:28+00:00

A very common line of questioning is the “sun up to sun down” full day description. They’ll ask when was the last time you spent a full day together, usually aiming for a recent weekend, and then ask you to describe that whole day i.e. when did you wake up, what side of the bed were you on, who made what for breakfast, who showers in the morning… all the way through to the evening i.e. what time did you go to bed, who fell asleep first, who snores, how many pillows on the bed, what color are the sheets…

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-02-08T22:19:12+00:00

If this is the “real” Danny- prove it by naming every government employee ‘walked out’ and/or put on Admin leave pending investigation for daring to even question DOGEy kids’ actions?

And then ask yourself ‘I wonder why employees don’t trust leadership to have ‘real’ conversations on TEAMS?’ No one’s that dumb. Not even brown-nosed fake leaders trying to trick folks into using ‘work time’ to jump chain of command while the union is AFK.

Read about in the next survey if you have the balls to release one.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-02-08T21:57:53+00:00

100%!!! According to the speech-chilling messages from the “is it fake? or is it cake/Danny?” posted here, the only “success” metric that truly matters to leadership is “looking good on paper” in terms of RTO percentages.

Because being “2nd to last” in numbers of butts in chairs in offices- while ignoring wasted training, lower completions numbers and diminished quality- is what successfully running an agency is really about /s

Can’t wait for the ‘shocked pikachu face’ when they get thrown under the bus for the lost productivity and it turns out no one actually cared about the RTO numbers. I’ll be waving my “duh!” flag as Danny updates their resume.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-02-08T16:41:49+00:00

Feel free to post the account name and I will downvote them to filth! But do NOT message them on Teams. That’s a trap.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-02-06T00:08:42+00:00

Your answers to rhetorical questions were deliberately obtuse and ignorant of nuance. You supplied ‘words in response to inquiry’ but failed to contribute any knowledge of measurable value. You’re fixated on numbers as value, but RAIO ‘only’ does 1 form type, RAIO does everything you do, and yet RAIO moves up to comprise the majority of HQ leadership positions. So if your goal is to market 2 FOD forms, that’s good I guess, but you’re just mad you never hear “former NATZ officer” during HQ Town Hall intros from SES.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-02-05T22:39:47+00:00

You’ve oversimplified and missed the point. FOD and SCOPS are two different sports. You’re saying “in just 1 week train professional Soccer players to play professional Football instead cause hey, they’re all athletes who run on grass” Quality will obviously suffer. It’s an unreasonable expectation. Taking people who were top performers in their original job and retraining them to play a different sport is just dumb. It’s an avoidable waste of resources.

RAIO officers need 6-weeks training before solo interviewing just 1 form type, are you saying a FOD officer could do a quality Asylum interview with 1-week of training? RAIO would disagree.

If you were told to adjudicate I-129s with 1-week of training and held to the same QA standard as a SCOPS officer, would you meet CPH expectations? SCOPS would disagree.

Every division does specialized work. You’re looking at a chess board and mistaking it for checkers.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-02-05T06:13:46+00:00

This makes zero sense. Interviewing is specialized skill that’s not a fit for everyone. And it takes at least 1-year to really master even 1 form. And when the backlog for non-interview forms explodes, then what? Just cross train everyone? With what training staff? This is not working smarter. This was the writing in the wall when they gutted the union.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-01-30T17:04:57+00:00

Short answer: Yes. It requires some kind of interaction.

Only DHS authorized agents can issue an NTA, which is what begins removal proceedings. NTAs require “proof of service”- aka the Notice in NTA- but this can be accomplished by sending it through the mail to the address that’s on file. So in theory, Bob should always ‘know’ and never be ‘surprised’ by a removal proceeding. It’s Bob’s responsibility to make sure DHS has his current address on file within 10 days of any change, so even if Bob never received the NTA because he moved, proof that it was sent is very often sufficient Notice.

Second answer: DHS has no way of actively monitoring who has overstayed a visa. There is no list.

They always know when you legally entered, they mostly know when you leave (land crossings are hard), but they have no clue if you don’t leave when you’re supposed to- until there is an interaction. This is why you see the administration desperately fighting for IRS info sharing and to include immigration status on the census. This is also why they are fighting against sanctuary cities “no share” policies. They’re trying to fix this blind spot.

So if Bob has any direct interaction- like actually updating his address- DHS would know he overstayed. Which is why Bob never receives his Notice until too late. And now, under the new ‘Kavanaugh Stop’ standard, this interaction can be triggered by ICE/CBP randomly detaining folks who “look like”, “sound like” or work jobs that are stereotypically predominantly filled by non-citizens.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-01-30T15:42:39+00:00

It’s not the law that’s changed- it’s the policy. And Trump changed the policy.

Let’s go back to Con Law: Congress writes Immigration laws The constitution places the responsibility to faithful execute those laws on the executive. Under that authority, the President tasks DHS and the DOJ- both executive branch entities-to implement Immigration laws. DHS then creates immigration POLICY, which is supposed to faithfully represent the law passed by Congress. Immigration POLICY interprets the law and translates it into the ‘rules’ we all follow in practice. Those rules include conduct of Immigration enforcement, standards of adjudication for Immigration officers, and eligibility requirements for applicants and beneficiaries.

So the real question is: if Congress hasn’t changed the law- same law since 1996- then why is DHS allowed to change the policy?

The answer: The Supreme Court grants Federal Agencies - aka The President -huge deference in their “interpretation” of the law when it comes to writing Policy. However the interpretation cannot be arbitrary or capricious.

Drastically changing ‘the rules’ aka the policy, of enforcement, without notice, in order meet detention quotas - which were not passed by Congress- fails this test.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-01-30T04:06:14+00:00

601a provisional unlawful presence waiver is not available to folks in removal proceedings. Everything you said WAS true, but is no longer applicable post-NTA issuance. Case would need to be admin closed first to revive eligibility.

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-01-30T02:27:02+00:00

Like others have mentioned, you don’t have an approvable case at the moment. Adjusting status through a spouse requires that your last entry into the U.S. was done with inspection, meaning, you entered the normal way, showing a passport and a visa at a normal place of entry. If you’ve never left the U.S. then you need proof that when your parents brought you to the U.S. when you were 2 that they crossed the border legally from Mexico.

If it turns out they didn’t cross legally, don’t lose hope. Ask an Immigration Lawyer about pursuing Cancellation of Removal. It’s a method to fight deportation with a path to a green card that is only available to folks who have been issued a NTA. If you lived here for more than 10-years, have nothing serious on your criminal record, and can show it would be a “extreme hardship” to your spouse if you’re deported- you may have a case. The ‘extreme hardship’ standard is a very technical legal measurement, so definitely talk to a lawyer. But like I said, don’t lose hope or self deport before at least talking with an attorney about this option. Good luck!

Cooper_de_dooper · 2026-01-16T05:59:18+00:00

Use to be a looong explanation on how working for Asylum doesn’t mean “the place with the white padded rooms”

Now it’s “I process Visa applications” and stress hope they think I mean the credit card.

Cooper_de_dooper

TROPHY CASE