karina

znaczy sie, ze na zycie ubezpieczenie? Bo obawiam sie, ze medyczne mogloby nie wystarczyc...

Hm... no wlasnie tak to bylo zapakowane, ze klient nie mogl widziec orginalnego pudelka... osmielam sie wiec dojsc do wniosku, ze w polskim sklepie ktos wykazal sie talentem artystycznym tudziez pomyslem na sprzedaz archiwalnych czekoladek.. I tutaj wracam do mojej klientki, ktora pracowala swego czasu w polskim sklepie i tak patrze na nia po chyba 3 miesiacach odkad zaczela tam pracowac i oczom nie wierze - i mowie: Ania, matko, ale Ty wyszczuplalas! A Ania na to: Wie Pani, ja w polskim sklepie pracuje i odkad tam pracuje to tylko jem jedzenie z puszek... przynajmniej pewne.

a propos polskich czekoladek: dostalam ostatnio od klienta ptasie mleczko. Opakowane w cos jakby na Swieta Wielkanocne - taki kartonik w ktory wklada sie cale pudelko ptasiego mleczka - ale dalej na tym kartoniku pisze, ze to wedlowskie ptasie mleczko itd. I wyobrazcie sobie, sciagnelam ten kartonik, ukazalo sie pudelko w folii i data waznosci: 12.12.2006. I teraz jest dylemat: eat or not to eat?

a ja sie tyle opisalam, przykladow szukalam, staralm sie wszystko wyajsnic prostymi slowami... i nawet like'a nie mozna mi dac? Chyba zaczne pisac bloga - jak dodam do tego przyklady spraw, ktrore znam, jak opisze madrosci niektorych klientow - to moze byc nieglupi pomysl...

Prosze nie zwaracac uwagi na to co ktos zrobil - prosze spojrzec na sam fakt, ze konsul 'doczepil' sie do klamstwa.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "... The record reflects that the applicant presently resides in Lithuania. He is the beneficiary of an approved ·Form 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, filed on his behalf by his U.S. citizen spouse. The applicant was convicted on November 30, 2000 of intentional larceny under article 271 part 2 and article 16 part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as of damage or destruction to property under article 278 part 1 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, the execution of which was postponed one year for him to complete his studies. There is no indication in the criminal records that the sentence of imprisonment was executed. The record, however, contains a certificate issued by the IT and Communications Department under the Republic of Lithuania Ministry of the Interior, which indicates that the applicant is now listed as having no prior convictions. Counsel and the applicant indicate the conviction has been expunged. At the time he committed the criminal acts on January 5, 2000 and August 28, 2000, respectively, the applicant was sixteen years old. The applicant failed to disclose his criminal arrest and conviction on his immigrant visa application and affirmatively indicated that he had never been arrested in response to question 41 on that application. See Form DS-230 Part II, Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration, dated August 10, 2010. Furthermore, at the time of his consular interview on August 10, 2010, the applicant denied having any problems with the police. Upon the request of the U.S. Department ofState officer, the applicant subsequently produced criminal records, which confirmed the above conviction. The applicant then indicated he remembered breaking a window but that he had not been .arrested and had not gone to court. This assertion is contradicted by his conviction records which contain a judicial narrative, indicating that the applicant had been detained and interrogated by the police and that he had given testimony in court before a district judge. At a subsequent consular interview, the applicant disclosed that he was aware of his conviction and had failed to disclose it on his immigrant visa application because he was ashamed. He also indicated that because the conviction was expunged after a certain period of time has passed, he did not believe it necessary to disclose the conviction. The director concluded that the applicant's conviction did not render the applicant inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Act, for having committed acrime involving moral turpitude, because he fell within the exception to inadmissibility found under section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act, where: he was under the age of 18 when he committed the offense; the offense was committed more than five years before th.e date of the visa application; and if imprisoned for the offense, he was released more than five years before the date of the visa application. The record contains no evidence that the applicant was ever imprisoned for the conviction, which appears to have been expunged. See Certificate issued by the IT and Communications Department under the Republic ofLithuania Ministry of the Interior, dated April 28, 2010. The AAO finds no error in the director's determination that the applicant qualified for the exception under section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act and is therefore not inadmissible as a result of his criminal conviction. Based on the applicant's false statements in his visa application and during his consular interviews, however, the director determined that he was inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act for having sought to procure admission to the United States through fraud or misrepresentation." --------------------------------------- Tutaj mam jeszcze ciekawszy przyklad - ponownie, 'wyrywam' z kontekstu pewne rzeczy, zebyscie szybciej zwrocili uwage na owa nieszczesna niekaralnosc: In addition, counsel asserts that the applicant did not willfully misrepresent his criminal background as he had been granted "rehabilitation" under Italian law. In support of this contention, two documents were submitted with the motion, showing that the applicant has "no criminal record" as the rehabilitation "restored him to the condition of an individual who had never been arrested or convicted of a crime." In addition, the AAO found that the applicant failed to reveal his prior arrests and convictions when applying for admission pursuant to the VWP. Furthermore, the record shows the applicant willfully misrepresented that he had never been arrested when he applied for entry under the VWP. The I94W Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver ArrivalIDeparture Form asks, "Have you ever been . . . arrested or convicted for two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence to confinement was five years . . . .?" (Emphasis added.). Even assuming the applicant believed he had no criminal convictions due to the fact that the Italian government granted him rehabilitation, stating that he had never been arrested was patently untrue. Significantly,there is no declaration or statement from the applicant asserting that he did not willfully misrepresent his previous arrests. Counsel's attempt to show the reasonableness of the applicant's subjective belief that he had no convictions because rehabilitation under Italian law treats the matter as if the matter never was, Motion to Reopen/Reconsider at 8-12, is unpersuasive without any statement from the applicant addressing his subjective belief.2 The Court held that only orders that vacate a criminal conviction based on a "defect in the underlying criminal proceeding" was no longer a "conviction" under the INA. Pinho, 432 F.3d at 215. In the instant case, the applicant's criminal convictions were "rehabilitated" under Italian law not because there was a defect in the underlying proceeding, but .--- rather, because of his good conduct during imprisonment and his assistance with the prosecution of other members of the Prima Linea. Letter from , dated August 11, 1995; Brief in Support of Appeal, dated June 14, 2001 ("As a result of his cooperation, . . . he was later awarder a full and complete pardon"). Therefore, under Phino, the applicant's numerous convictions remain convictions under the INA despite the Italian government's rehabilitation of his criminal record. Accordingly, the applicant is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for entering the United States as an intending immigrant under the VWP and for misrepresenting his previous arrests, convictions, and imprisonment in order to procure admission into the United States. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CZYLI TUTAJ IDAC TOKIEM MYSLENIA POWYZSZEJ SPRAWY - TRZEBA BY SIE W APLIKACJI NIE PRZYZNAC, ZE SIE BYLO KARANYM ALE ZA TO JAK CIE CHWYCA TO WYJASNIC, ZE WELL... BYLES KARANY, ALE W POLSCE NIE JESTES JUZ W REKORDZIE KARANY I WEDLE PRZEPISOW POLSKICH JESTES CZYSTY (CZYLI POWROT DO SLOWA "EVER" ...), POTRZEBUJECIE JESZCZE W MIARE DOBREGO ADWOKATA, PETYCJE I-130 A CO ZA TYM IDZIE JAKIEGOS SPONSORA, ODMOWIA WAM WIZY, ZROBICIE APPEAL W FORMIE UBIEGANIA SIE O WAIVER - I W TYM TO MOMENCIE BEDZIE MOZLIWOSC WYJASNIENIA, ZE "U NAS W POLSCE TO DZIALA TAK, ZE NIE JESTEM KARANY" - I MOZE KTOS TO NAWET UZNA... ALE PROSZE SPOJRZEC NA JEDNO CIEKAWE ZDANIE - Therefore, under Pinho, the applicant's numerous convictions remain convictions under the INA despite the Italian government's rehabilitation of his criminal record. I CHYBA NA TO ZDANIE POWOLUJA SIE KONSULOWIE ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRZEPRASZAM ZE TAK MALO UMIEJETNIE WKLEJAM PRZYKLADY, ALE JESLI CHODZI O KOMPUTERY TO JA NIE ZA BARDZO ...

Tutaj chodzi o nazewnictwo - bo w Stanach mowisz, ze rekord jest expunged (badz sealed) - w sumie to to samo co w Polsce 'zatarcie': i w Stanach niby juz nie masz tego rekordu (a jednak musisz sie przyznac, bo jednak gdzies tenze rekord jest/badz maja do niego wglad odpowiednie sluzby) i w Polsce niby nie masz w kartotece, ze byles karany (do momentu az pojawisz sie w konsulacie/ambasadzie USA gdzie konsul patrzy na Ciebie pod katem przepisow kraju do ktorego starasz sie o wize).... I idac tym tokiem myslenia mamy to co przytoczylam powyzej a o czym mowa w aplikacji na obywatelstwo (wspominam o tejze aplikacji, bo tam jest bardzo wyraznie wyjasnione co to znaczy slowo EVER...) - wspolny mianownik, ze byles skazany... Co jest ciekawe to to, w jaki sposob urzednicy imigracyjni (mam tutaj na mysli np. AAO) interpretuja zatarcie skazania - wyraznie pisza, ze Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwosci w swoim rejestrze nie ma aplikanta jako osoby skazanej, ale nie zmienia to faktu, ze owy aplikant dopuscil sie takiego czynu iles tam lat wstecz, ktory to czyn jest bariera w otrzymaniu pobytu stalego na terenie USA. Co wiecej, w innym przykladzie ktory podalam, wyraznie jest napisane, ze ktos sie nie przyznal, a byl karany (kiedys tam) wiec juz nie patrzac na to za co byl karany - on jest inadmissible, bo nie przedstawil faktow takich jakie byly... Z podworka: przerabiam teraz sprawe chlopaka, ktory zrobil dokladnie to samo: byl kiedys karany w Polsce, pozniej byl w USA, nastepnie sponsorowanie przez prace (rejon IL) i chlopak polecial (szczesliwy) do Polski po wize imigracyjna. W ambasadzie (a wczesniej w formie DS-260, ktora wypelnialo biuro slynnego adwokata pana K w Chicago) zaznaczyli, ze aplikant nie byl karany (idac tokiem myslenia, ze skoro rekordu nie ma, niekaralnosc czysta, to wedle prawa polskiego oraz logiki: KARANY ? NIE.) Ku zaskoczeniu aplikanta pan konsul porozmawial milo kilka minut po czym przeszedl do szczegolow, a bardziej konkretnie do pytania o karalnosc. I tutaj naszemu aplikantowi wydalo sie podejrzane, ze pan konsul AKURAT na tym pytaniu zatrzymal sie dluzej, ale w koncu taka rola urzednika, zeby niektore pytania zadac (moze nawet kilka razy...). Pan konsul podziekowal, zostawil paszport aplikanta i gdyby to byl film to zapewne nastepne ujecie byloby, ze na lotnisku w Chi City stoi zona z dzieckiem, ktore trzyma baloniki WELCOME HOME. Reality bylo nieco inne: otoz przeszczesliwy aplikant wrocil do domu, nawet zdazyl zadzwonic do biura pana mecenasa i bardzo, ale to bardzo podziekowac za wszelka pomoc, kilku znajomym serdecznie polecil uslugi pana K i poszedl sie napic ze znajomymi. Nastepnego ranka zadzwonil telefon z ambasady i mila pani poprosila aby aplikant przybyl do ambasady ponownie, ona nie wie w jakiej sprawie, ale dobrze zeby przyjechal. Wiec nasz pan zdecydowal, ze najpierw wytrzezwieje a jutro z rana od nowa w pociag i do konsula. I tak oto zjawil sie w Warszawie - jak mi pozniej powiedzial, ze reszte historii pamieta jak przez mgle i gdyby nie to, ze juz wytrzezwial to by myslal, ze to jakis sen - otoz konsul poinformowal go o dozywotnim banie za klamstwo w aplikacji, bo pytanie brzmialo CZY KIEDYKOLWIEK.... a nasz pan kiedykolwiek byl karany, co prawda dawno temu i co prawda zatarl sie wyrok i nawet co prawda wyrok byl w zawiasach, ale byl... I dlatego nie za ten wyrok, nie za to co sie stalo iles lat wstecz, ale za klamstwo dostal bana i oddano mu paszport do reki ze slowami, ze konsulowi jest przykro. Skad wiedzieli o wyroku? Ja nie wiem. Ale fakt, ze wiedzieli. I teraz pytanie - warto bylo..? Wyrok za naublizanie policjantowi, ktory dal mu mandat za zaparkowanie samochodu tam gdzie podjezdzaja karetki pod pogotowie, bo chlopak przywiozl siostre, ktora rodzila.. To jest wszystko opisane w wyroku. Ani to felony, ani to kradziez, ani to jazda po pijanemu, ale wyrok byl. Troche sie rozpisalam, ale to tak dla rozrywki przeczytajcie.

Dlatego - jak juz kiedys o tym pisalam - aby ludzie nie powolywali sie na "Bo tam nie napisali wyraznie" albo "Bo ja pytania nie zrozumialem" - w nowej wersji formy N-400 chlopaki z immigration wyraznie napisali: masz sie przyznac jesli KIEDYKOLWIEK miales rekord kryminalny - i tutaj jest zaznaczone w aplikacji: "nawet jesli rekord zostal usuniety; nawet jesli twoj prawnik, sedzia badz ktokolwiek mowi ci, ze twoj rekord nie istnieje". I tym to sposobem sprawe rozwiazali .... Podobnie jest z wizami - wedle prawa urzednicy sugeruja sie dobrem kraju, ktory reprezentuja.

to ja od siebie cos takiego: The AAO, reviewing the applicaint's form I-601 on appeal, also found the applicant to be inadmissible pursuant to section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act. The AAO found that the record established that the applicant was arrested in Poland on March 26, 1996 and convicted on October 21, 2002 of several offenses, including obtaining bank loans under false pretenses. However, on his October 22, 2002 nonimmigrant visa application, the applicant indicated that he had never been arrested or convicted of any crime. As such, the applicant is also inadmissible to the United States pursuant to section 21Z(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act, for willfully misrepresenting a material fact in order to procure a Visa to the United States. Decision of the AAO, dated May 18, 2010. ---------------------------------------------- Dlatego napisalam - wiza turystyczna jest przyznawana na troche innych zasadach niz wiza imigracyjna co nie znaczy, ze nie sprawdzaja pewnych rzeczy... -------------------------------------------- The applicant was convicted of breaking and entering on December 11, 1981. On November 28, 1983, the applicant was convicted of brealung and entering and theft. It is noted that on January 21, 1995, the Polish Department of Justice removed the applicant from their central registration of convicted, based on the sentences being "too severe for the actions taken by the convicted." See evidence submitted with Form 1-485, dated January 10, 2000. The applicant applied for adjustment of status on January 27, 2000. Form 1-485, dated January 10, 2000. Therefore, the crimes involving moral turpitude for which the applicant was found inadmissible occurred more than 15 years prior to the applicant's application for adjustment of status. -------------------------------------------------- Czyli na logike jesli byl usuniety z rejestru w 1995 roku, skladal aplikacje w 2000 ....

Oba punkty sa poprawne. Wbrew logice.. Trzeba wziac pod uwage, ze wiza imigracyjna (czyli green card) ma troche inne wymogi niz wiza nieimigracyjna (czyli taka o jak Ty sie starasz). I - masz tutaj racje w punkcie 2 - jesli konsul uzna, ze mozna Cie wpuscic na teren Stanow (a badziej konkretnie - dac Ci wize nieimigracyjna, ktora i tak nie upowaznia Cie do pozostania na terenie USA na wiecznosc) - konsul moze dac Ci owa wize. Moze tez - jako konsul - bioraca pod uwage wszelkie argumenty typu Twoja pozycja w firmie, jak dlugo tam pracujesz, fakt, ze nie wchodziles w konflikt z prawem od jakiegos czasu itd itp - zasugerowac waiver o ile to co zrobiles (bo wiadomo, my tutaj nie znamy szczegolow) kwalifikuje sie na waiver aby dostac tylko wize tymczasowa. Teraz ode mnie: Tego typu przestepstwo jest traktowane niesamowicie powaznie. I wiem co mowie.

Love it

Matko... zeby ten Oregon byl blizej NJ....

Pozdrowienia dla zony Kobiety to jednak maja pamiec