On October 26, 2026, @RHPalmerston3 posted a detailed thread examining the immigration difficulties facing Christian blogger and commentator Samuel Sey (@SlowToWrite). The core argument was that Sey entered the United States on a nonimmigrant (most likely B-2 visitor) visa while harboring a clear intent to marry and remain, thereby risking a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact. Public records and subsequent statements from the Department of Homeland Security substantially confirm the timeline and structural problems the thread identified.
Confirming the Timeline and Visa Path
Sey has publicly described the process of obtaining a U.S. visa. In a February 14, 2022 interview with Allie Stuckey, he explained that he had only recently entered the United States after waiting for a visa appointment. He noted that the U.S. embassy in Toronto had been effectively closed for nearly two years due to COVID restrictions, forcing him to travel to Calgary for the interview. Consular officers approved the visa. K-1 fiancé visas for applicants in Canada are processed exclusively at the U.S. embassy in Montreal, not Calgary, and lockdowns did not create an exception. Calgary handles nonimmigrant visas. Whatever visa Sey received was therefore not a K-1.
He married his American citizen wife, Annie, on April 23, 2022. That places the marriage well within 90 days of the approximate early-February 2022 entry. Under the State Department’s 90-day rule (9 FAM 302.9), certain conduct inconsistent with nonimmigrant status—including marriage and settlement—within 90 days of entry creates a rebuttable presumption that the applicant misrepresented his or her true intent at the time of the visa application or admission. Consular officers assessing B visas are required to presume immigrant intent under INA § 214(b) and to probe ties abroad. Declaring an intent to marry and remain would normally have led an officer to refuse the B visa and direct the applicant to the K-1 process.
DHS has since stated that Sey, described as an illegal alien from Ghana, entered legally in 2022 but overstayed his authorized admission by more than four years, has no pending applications, and has accepted voluntary departure. He was arrested by ICE at Columbus International Airport on October 21, 2026, and is being held until removed. Family statements acknowledge that he entered legally and had been working with an attorney toward permanent status, while attributing the current difficulties to possible clerical issues. The public record does not show any approved or pending adjustment-of-status or other application that would have preserved lawful status through the multi-year period.
The Absence of Canadian Citizenship
Sey was born in Ghana and moved to Canada as a child. He has described himself as “Ghanaian-Canadian,” referred to himself “as a Canadian” in social-media posts after moving to the United States, and lived for years in the Toronto area. These statements establish long-term residence and cultural identification, but they do not establish Canadian citizenship.
Canadian citizens do not require a U.S. visitor visa for temporary entry. They present a Canadian passport and are typically admitted for up to six months by a Customs and Border Protection officer. Sey’s documented need to apply for a visa, schedule an interview, and travel to Calgary is inconsistent with Canadian citizenship at the time of the 2021–2022 application. Ghana is not a visa-exempt nationality for U.S. purposes. The most straightforward reading of the public record is that Sey held Canadian permanent-resident status (or equivalent) based on his Ghanaian nationality and therefore required a nonimmigrant visa. DHS has consistently described him as a Ghanaian national. No primary statement from Sey has been located in which he explicitly asserts legal Canadian citizenship in a manner that would explain visa-free entry.
Right of Return
A multi-year overstay triggers the ten-year unlawful-presence bar under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) once the individual departs the United States. More than one year of unlawful presence, followed by departure, renders the person inadmissible for ten years. The bar attaches upon departure. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can sometimes adjust status inside the United States without departing, but DHS has stated that Sey has no pending applications.
Separately, a finding of willful material misrepresentation of immigrant intent under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) creates a permanent bar, for which during the February, 2022 interview Sey said:
“Yeah the plan is that I’ll be staying in Ohio for good… when we get married we’ll be finally being able to stay together, live together after all this time.”
Sey demonstrated a clear intent to have stayed in the country, regardless of what he told the consular officer.
The 90-day rule supplies a rebuttable presumption that the government can rely upon. That bar does not expire automatically. Relief, if available, requires a discretionary waiver (Form I-601 under INA § 212(i)) based on extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S.-citizen or lawful-permanent-resident spouse or parent. Hardship to U.S.-citizen children alone does not qualify, though it can be considered as it affects the qualifying relative. The extreme-hardship standard is a totality-of-circumstances test that demands more than the ordinary consequences of separation or relocation. Factors such as the ability to continue a writing career from Canada, or an unwillingness to relocate the family to Canada or Ghana, tend to weaken rather than strengthen an economic or family-unity claim. Approval remains discretionary even when the statutory showing is made.
In short, the combination of a multi-year overstay (ten-year bar upon departure) and the strong public indicators of nonimmigrant-visa misrepresentation (potential permanent bar) creates substantial obstacles to any future return. Voluntary departure, as accepted according to DHS, avoids a formal removal order in some respects but does not erase the underlying bars. Future visa or immigrant applications will be evaluated against the full record, including the timing of the marriage relative to entry and the nature of the original visa. While discretionary waivers exist in theory, the documented facts make approval uncertain and, on the present public record, unlikely in the near term.
Powered by RedCircle
