Follow this forum: Subscribe above to receive an email when anyone responds or add the RSS Feed below into your own newsfeed reader.
Trumps Homeland Security is NOT issuing waivers for sexually based offences.
Should you try anyways? No.
When you do an application, you are outlining a bunch of facts that can be used against you in the future. If you don't care about the money, then care about this...whatever you said/say WILL be used against you in the future.
If you have a serious offence, and especially a sexually based offence of any type (many of these have nothing to do with raping a woman, they can be voyeurism, they can be unwanted touching in a club, they can be "being caught in a swingers club" they can be two men having consensual sex. They can be an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old, literally a grade 12 and grade 10 having sex. If you have an offence that mentions anything sexual please listen to the following.
1. Do not do the waiver on your own
2. Do not write your own personal letter
3. Do not let your friends write their own reference letters.
4. Do not apply NOW. Wait until 2021.
5. Start collecting "proof of rehabilitation" now. That varies from case to case but I can help you with that
6. Do not apply for the waiver anyways because you don't care about the money. Your screwing up your FUTURE waivers by handing in a shitty waiver now.
A cookie cutter waiver works for simple waivers. Sexually based offences of ANY kind are not simple.
[ J Rogers appended this reply on February 13, 2020 @ 10:43 am ]
Now that you have proven your point, you can now disappear, since you only APPEARED apparently to prove that is can be done. Cue flood of applicants with sexually based offences.
@J Rogers still waiting for you to make that call. Or was I right and you, being a 'professional', are struggling with admitting you were wrong to say it's impossible, wrong to call me a liar and wrong to call me whatever other adjectives you used. Ex gang member etc.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Remember everyone, forget what the naysayers say. It may be improbable, but NEVER impossible :) Good luck to you all out there! Hopefully see you on 'the other side' ;)
@jazzsax1 I don't have any other offences. The only offence I've ever received in my life is a SBO. To which the waiver was issued.
Yeah, I could copy and paste the wording here. Or you can all do what I've asked @J Rogers to do NUMEROUS times and call Millar and Hayes and ask them about any recent success with SBO waivers.
Pretty simple way to verify my story don't you think?
Ambassador - what John is saying is that waivers for SBO's have different wording on them on the waiver (sounds like on the bottom) that waivers for other offenses. He's not referring to the order from the BIA granting your appeal and telling them to give you the waiver, he's talking about the actual waiver that was issued to you.
Assuming you have it on hand, you could easily reference and quote the wording, and then everyone can shut up and agree you got a waiver, through alot of patience, money and work.
Michelle asked me what the special order was. The only order was from the BIA for my waiver to be approved, which I posted.
Why don't you enlighten me on what this special order was supposed to say? Also, if I dont have a waiver for an SBO, what do you think I have a waiver for? I'm totally confused by your angle. Did you call Millar and Hayes to verify? Or are you scared of the answer and having to admit you are wrong?
I asked you already what you think I have to gain by falsifying my statements? People will do their due diligence no matter what anyone says on here, so I really don't stand to gain anything by lying.
@Ambassador when you get a waiver for a sexually based offence it says something specific on the Waiver. Michelle asked you about it. You didn't know because you didn't have one. Also Ken has gone silent suddenly because he's realized he has missed something.
Anyways, it must have cost you a fortune, as well as 7 years, and a LOT of work. So let me amend my statement.
The only way to get a waiver for a sexually based offence is to spend a LOT of money, fight appeals, wait for YEARS, and you MIGHT be successful.
Is that accurate enough? Since I suspect your only motive was to prove me wrong, are we NOW on the same page?
@J Rogers you said "My motives are the same. I just wanted people to save their time and money and prevent them from being given false hope and being taken advantage of by the Ken Scotts of the world. He proved once again he is untrustworthy and will go to great lengths to pretend he can pull a rabbit out of a hat. He clearly has never seen a waiver for a sexually based offence in the last few years, and exposing that has been worth it."
And my motives are to debunk the John Rogers of the world from myths that people with SBO's will never get a waiver, be it under this administration or not. If people are willing to put up the money, time and the fight, why would anyone deny them of that if there's a shot? Slim or not. Why is that SO hard for you to comprehend? I suppose unless you've been in that situation, you really just wouldn't understand.
Anyone who's in my shoes is MORE than welcome to ask me ANYTHING. I'll answer what I can. Don't listen to this dream crusher.
LOLOLOL Now I'm definitely amused. Has anyone noticed @J Rogers could EASILY verify my story by calling the law firm I used and asking them if they have dealt with waivers for SBO's and any recent decisions being successful? All he has to do is that one SIMPLE task. I mean nothing I say will change this idiots mind. To come to think of it, I bet if he'd figure out how to use a telephone, he'd call the law firm, get the validation and then accuse them of being accomplices of Ken and probably a hoax firm HAHA!! Also what question did Michelle ask me that I didn't answer? She asked if I saw Dr. Cheema and how long it took me to get in and I answered.
@J Rogers what's wrong with you? It's not YOU I'm trying to help. It's people out there in the same boat as I was. So I could care less what you do or don't believe. You're not winning anyone over with your distrust of the world.
@ Michelle is there any doubts you have or have any more questions that you'd like me to answer or clear up?
@Ambassador. Michelle asked you a question and you failed miserably. You don't have a waiver for a sexually based offence. Ken Scott your such a fraud that your cluelessness at what I am talking about makes it clear YOU have never seen a waiver for a sexually based offence either.
Anyways, as i said. They are not giving waivers (that I have seen or heard of) for sexually based offences now, even if you had a waiver before. Ambassador is not being truthful. If he was, he would know what I am talking about and he does not. And if you look at the writing style of this "ambassador" from his first post to his last, you will notice he "changed" quite a bit from his first post to his last. And notice "he" did that when I called him out as being Kens assistant.
But this is a waste of time. Few of you have a sexually based offence. And he is claiming he started 7 years ago...during the Obama period, and they said no (weird I was getting clients waivers for sexually based offences then) but NOW under Trump, he was successful. I call bullshit but I am happy to leave it at that.
My motives are the same. I just wanted people to save their time and money and prevent them from being given false hope and being taken advantage of by the Ken Scotts of the world. He proved once again he is untrustworthy and will go to great lengths to pretend he can pull a rabbit out of a hat. He clearly has never seen a waiver for a sexually based offence in the last few years, and exposing that has been worth it.
Simply put, I never made the claim that everyone with an SBO will get a waiver. My claim was that I disagreed with anyone who says it is IMPOSSIBLE looks at Mr Rogers.
It's possible, you just need the right equities and for them to tip the scales in your favour. And you need to convince the ARO or the BIA of this. In my case, I did that, eventually.
I just didn't want some poor lurker to read statements from law professionals telling them they have NO chance, when that lurker could very well have been someone like me. Nobody needs to be discouraged in this process. There is a process. It's not easy, even for some of the minor offences NOT of moral turpitude. But as long as you're willing to spend the time, money and emotions to fight it, there's ALWAYS a chance. Slim or not, I just wanted to shed a light semblance of encouragement on a dark post my Mr. Rogers.
Pretty much agree with all sides here. Ambassador, it took you 7 years to get a waiver for a SBO. By that definition, it proves these are difficult to obtain. Not impossible, but difficult.
John's business is not based around fighting for someone for seven years. His fees are fairly low and he likes to take cases that will work as he does re-submissions (excluding the US fees) out of his own pocket for free. So why would he do cases that don't go through?
7 years, 3 attempts, multiple appeals and you finally got through. That is not a normal waiver.
@Ambassador, okay, this is making more sense to me now. When you first posted, I thought you applied, and won an appeal. Simple; that I was questioning, but now that you have provided more information, it shows that an individual is in for a long expensive road. Which is what people need to know, and not think it will be easy.
If I understand right:
1st waiver attempt was denied; you appealed and lost.
2nd waiver attempt was denied again; you appealed and won.
You also attended a Panel review Doctor and it took almost 7 years at a considerable amount of money I am guessing.
Note: your "order" is different then what I was expecting, but no argument, maybe each one is very specific to the conviction.
Your case shows that is is very complicated to receive a waiver for "Sexual" offenses, and in 99% of cases impossible. Anyone wanting to try should be aware of this.
This guy is hilarious. Just doesn't trust a soul in his life.
@J Rogers Ok then why don't you do as I instructed you, and call Millar and Hayes, anonymously, or not and ask them if they have ever worked with anyone needing a waiver for a sexually based offence. Ask them of the amount they've done, how many have been successful. Go ahead and ask them if any recent decisions have been favorable. When they corroborate what I said, you can publicly admit on here you were wrong to accuse me of being a liar, an ex gang member, and an 'ambassador' on behalf of Ken. Not that I'm the least bit insulted. I just want you to say "gulp I was wrong"
Go on, we are all waiting with baited breath
And I still do not believe them. I was just at the airport and met 62 new people. That's about 60 people a week. I haven't see a single person getting waivers for sexually based offences ANYWHERE, but K Scott suddenly appears to "bolster" "Ambassador's story" to basically rebut me indicating "you can't get a waiver for sexually based offences".
What a coincidence. Ambassador SUDDENLY appears, never asked a question, never made a comment, and now suddenly he has SO MUCH to say....in a waiver forum.
Michelle asked you as trick question Ambassador. You missed it. Ken also missed it.
Congrats Ambassador as I personally always like to see clients happy and am happy when they get their cases approved. Not all lawyers are bad as I said I refer select cases to them like Greencard applications, Derivivative Citizenship applications and I-601 Waiver cases. Some have sent me waiver cases to do or either prepare for them. The point is that yes it is extremely difficult but people can definitely get a waiver case for sex crimes approved under Trump...but it will not be easy.
@Michelle My lawyer did tell me that appeals rarely work, but he recommended we try because he really believed I had a solid case and as mentioned, they misrepresented some info that should have been a positive equity for me. I'm sorry but regardless of J. Rodger's wishes, I will not post those types of details on here as to what it was they misrepresented. As mentioned, the reason we reapplied after the appeal denial was because the BIA did acknowledge they had in fact misrepresented said info, but they still felt it wasn't grounds to overturn their initial decision. I reapplied because I was not about to give up and my lawyer was honest with telling me he felt I had a shot. Albeit a slim one, but because of how much I have riding on the waiver, I went for it. Denied again, appealed again, and finally struck a chord with the BIA. At the bottom of the decision said this:
ORDER - The appeal is sustained
FURTHER ORDER - The respondands application of a waiver under section xxx.x.x of the Immigration and Nationality Act is granted
My lawyer did advise it that it's rare for the BIA to provide those further orders to grant the waiver. I guess he was right in that I did have a viable shot. Hence my glowing accolades of his firm; more importantly, him!
@Michelle I did see him because in my first appeal (I believe), the ARO or BIA requested a Panel Interview by one of their listed doctors. Dr Cheema's office is fairly close to where I live and was able to see him within a month and a half. I spent 30 minutes with him where he confirmed he didn't see me as any kind of threat and that his report would reflect that. My lawyer and I were very optimistic, yet the BIA, while noting some discrepancies in the ARO's decisions, still upheld the decision and I had to reapply for my second waiver. Which was eventually also denied yet it was after appealing again that I was successful.
I noticed you advise "unrestricted" travel? Does your waiver state the special Order? The few clients that I have who have received waivers for sex offense have the the Order listed: (I won't list it on here) at the bottom of the their waiver, and they are do have trouble crossing the odd time..If you haven't had any trouble, just keep in mind that you might depending on the Custom Officer you may deal with..
When I say unrestricted, my waiver states I may enter for business or leisure purposes. I should have maybe clarified that.
My posts don't really contradict. Post 1 was just watered down information of the process. Yes, Millar and Hayes is an immigration law firm, but Andrew was my lawyer who took my case on and eventually I succeeded in receiving a waiver. You find it hard to believe, which is fine, but YOUR lack of belief hardly makes me a liar.
You seem like a sincere pessimist. Not a great sign if you were someones attorney. You'd like me to air all my details out on the internet, but I decide not to bite, so to you I'm providing false information that may make people supposedly waste money. Let me ask you, what does this gain me? Nothing. So why would I need to make this up?
Look, I get it. You create a post telling people not to apply for sexually based offences. You cite reasons why no one will get one. Maybe you haven't won a case in this regard so that's why you created the post. You're trying to maintain credibility on here to the people who may want to use your services; like I said, I get it. I created my post because it is YOU spreading false information and I wanted to give people hope, before you go crushing it for everyone else. Is everyone going to receive a waiver? No. Of course not. Like you said, it's an inexact science. My appeal was simply favourable to the right people in the BIA. Call it luck, fate, magic, wizardry or whatever you want.
I think I posted enough information about how I got my waiver without airing out my dirty laundry on a public internet forum. J.Rodgers you should really give people on here more credit. Do you think that they will take my word for it without doing their due dilligence? Anyone who has a sexually based offence is free to call the law firm I mentioned and inquire if they have dealt with waivers for SBO's and what the outcomes have been. If they say no, then I suppose you can agree with J Rodgers and call me a liar.
Also -- "We know who you are, your the guy who poses as the "ex gang member" on On Ken's podcasts. Or you did before Ken stopped doing waivers. If you have REAL information to post, please bring it forward. A lot of people on here are anxious for REAL hope and real information."
I don't really know what you're referencing with that statement. In any case, the information here that was posted was pretty real. Rather than peruse the law firm's website to verify my claims, call them and ask them of their experience with dealing with waivers for SBO's. Pretty simple.
Ambassador has brought up an interesting point...has anyone ever appealed a denial to a higher level then the standard Appeal process and won a case? I personally do not believe in the appeal process, as I have tried it a few times, and have never won. So I don't waste my clients time or money. However, I wonder if there is a "higher" level such as the "redress" program? Anyone? including the experts? I would like to hear other experiences and suggestions..
@k scott I checked out the website, other than reviews I notice its revamped but still sounds as unprofessional as ever and the "fake" September letters are still up there.
Ken, I don't know WHAT you are really up to, but;
-you claimed to charge big bucks for waivers, ($5000-$10000 actual quote in this forum) but everyone you seem to do for about $500. None of your former clients seem to have paid very much yet you claim everyone else is "discount"
-Your maintaining that you have gotten approved waivers for sexually based offences...again no proof.
-you focus on September Letters but you seem to simply get waivers
-you claimed to "train" or "work" or "consult" for Homeland Security (in the past) but it fell apart when we asked for proof
-You were away from Canada for quite a while and made a huge attempt to block ME from having access to your social media
-Your not authorized to fingerprint, the company you "work for" cannot fingerprint, and you have no explanation for this. To me its the mark of someone who cannot pass the vetting process, because of record, credit or other problems.
-Not that its that suspicious, but I don't actually think you have your Canadian Citizenship yet. I think your still working on it.
-Your exaggerated bio has been removed from everything. Almost like you were worried about someone finding you. The only mention of your name is in the fake reviews on the company website. I am sure a couple might be real but the majority....so obviously faked.
When a person has to use a lot of false claims to bolster their credibility or expertise, or "over-promise" results, that's a huge red flag. I like how you have an "office" in Vancouver, Surrey and Winnipeg (as well as in Europe) but no other addresses. You can't even afford to rent a UPS mail box and PRETEND its an office?
|YOU TYPE:||YOU SEE:|
|"This is quoted text."||
This is quoted text.
|::This is a title|
|:::This is a smaller title|
|% inline code text %||
|+Bulleted unordered list item+
+Bulleted unordered list item+
|#Bulleted ordered list item#
#Bulleted ordered list item#