As I've posted before, my Mother in Law has been denied a tourist visa 3 times due to failure to prove sufficient ties to her home country. Have been thinking, and have had one person tell me that they know of people who've done this, so wondering what you guys think.

1. Wife should be a citizen within 2 years, then can petition her mother for LPR.
2. After a few visits to US, mother in law surrenders her green card to USCIS.
3. Mother in Law uses the surrender of her green card to prove to consular officer that she does not intend to stay in the US, so that she can get a tourist visa.
4. We all live happily ever after, and I don't have to live with my Mother in Law.

Comments?

The logic is impeccable.

I just do not know whether it would work or not.

I have never seen this approach followed through, mentioned once or twice.

With a Visa she would usually be able to visit for up to 6 months any year, and of course if she has LPR status she might just stay anyway.

So dangerous either way.

Perhaps the safest bet is to just stump up for your wife to visit her.

Like the idea, but it may be long and an expensive journey to take....

Have you talked to the embassy? Would they accept "a bond money" as a guaranty that your mother in-law will return? Some embassies do that, but it is not widely publicized.

Have not heard of that. Which embassies have you heard of doing that?

Sorry, I don't remember....Can't find anything specific either.

http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0941112N.pdf page 16

India: “Many ask whether they can sign a bond with the US consulate; this means they give an undertaking that they will deposit a certain amount of money with the consulate and, if they do not return within a fixed period, they will forfeit this amount. Such a system DOES NOT EXIST with the US consulate. You cannot offer any bond for this purpose yourself until asked.”

The part of not living with the MIL sounds good, the question is, do you think they'll swap the GC for the tourist visa? Doesn't sound to me they would, but then again, i might be wrong...

Rather than take the circuitous route, why not offer MIL some funds to either bank or invest in something back home and establish more of a financial obligation to home country?

diadromous mermaid,

Possibly because money in the bank is an extremely weak tie - it can be withdrawn just as quickly as it was deposited and carried off to the USA to begin one's new life as an immigrant. Money invested may take only a little more time to withdraw (depending on what it was invested in).

And that having been said, this MIL has applied 3 times for a visa, each time showing income and bank account info - she is likely to be asked where her windfall came from, and the answer is going to look dicey.

Having money goes to the issue of can the visa applicant afford their proposed trip to the USA (so that they will not wind up stranded there or having to work illegally), not the issue of whether they'll likely to leave the USA and return home.

Yodrak's right. Money in the bank isn't a tie, just because the money's there, doesn't mean it will stay there. Plus, wouldn't work anyway. Not your average Filipino MIL, she's got more money in the bank than I do. She also owns an apartment building and lives off the money she gets for rent. But on the most recent try, the consular officer just said that she could be a landlord just as easily from the states as she could in the PI.

Sherlock,

Very true. My wife still owns a condo, which she rents out, back in her country.The tenant deposits the rent money to her account every month.

Yodrak