Doc, it was mentioned in another thread in the last day or two that signing the I94 itself, which has the wording 'nonimmigrant' on it, can be the one big trip-up......
Damned if I know where the thread is....
Also, when you refer to 'visa violations' - remember - when traveling on the VWP, there is no Visa - hence the name Visa Waiver Program.......
Full Version: Fiance entering on tourist visa, then marrying...?
VisaJourney.com > General Family Based Immigration Topics > Working & Traveling prior to getting a Green Card
QUOTE(dr_lha @ Feb 20 2007, 10:49 PM) 
I've entered the USA on VWP a few times, and never once was I asked any probing questions about my visit. I believe it would be possible to get past CBP with immigration intent, and not lie to a CBP officier. A good officer would catch you, but honestly when 500 people show up on a Jumbo from the UK, they don't usually care about their reasons for visiting.
The point I was trying to make, is that everyone on here says: Yes you can come in to the USA on VWP, but if you intended to remain you're going to get into trouble with USCIS. This is the conventional wisdom here. Can someone quote me anything in the legal statutes that actually state that USCIS officers can use the reason of "intent" on a VWP as denial of AOS, or any cases where this has happened to anyone?
Quoting visa statutes don't help because as the INA states, almost all visa violations are forgiven by being married to a USC, including entering on VWP.
The point I was trying to make, is that everyone on here says: Yes you can come in to the USA on VWP, but if you intended to remain you're going to get into trouble with USCIS. This is the conventional wisdom here. Can someone quote me anything in the legal statutes that actually state that USCIS officers can use the reason of "intent" on a VWP as denial of AOS, or any cases where this has happened to anyone?
Quoting visa statutes don't help because as the INA states, almost all visa violations are forgiven by being married to a USC, including entering on VWP.
Food for thought,
I did four VWP trips over 2 years for 90 days at a time... The first time was easy, was travelling with an american gf on the holiday where I met my now husband. I came back, easy again....the third time , a bit more in depth and the fourth, well I was taken to the room and grilled.
Now, I had my own business which was why I could travel as much as I wanted and spare the time, but that really freaked them out every time. My " ties " weren't that strong as I was not living in my home country anyway. As it was xmas eve, he said he'd let me in this last time, but I shouldn't come back again for at least a year. And, that if I did there would be a record of my " interview" I told him we were filing for K1, he said fine , you'll be welcome then but dont come back without it!
Had I said to heck with it, stayed and married etc. then tried AOS would the record of his " notes" appeared at any of the process???? My point is about the "intent to immigrate", no-one can know what an officer at some point tapped in to that little screen...( assuming there had been previous visits to the states) Could it be used??? In my hypothetical scenario I would have been done for!
QUOTE(rebeccajo @ Feb 20 2007, 10:53 PM)
Doc, it was mentioned in another thread in the last day or two that signing the I94 itself, which has the wording 'nonimmigrant' on it, can be the one big trip-up......
True, but what I'm not sure about is are there actually any consequences of it. People here always say that you can't do AOS if you have immigration intent from VWP, but the INA simply states that you can only do AOS from a VWP if you're an immediate relative.
My point in asking this is not to encourage people to do this BTW, I'm hoping someone can show me the legal reason that means people can't abuse the visa system in this way.
QUOTE(rebeccajo @ Feb 21 2007, 01:38 PM)
Nath, you just don't get it, do you?
You have an opinion. Good for you. Yay and all that jazz.
Other people have opinions too. In fact, it's refreshing to have more than one opinion. I find one opinion to be rather dull, boring and - well - narrow minded.
What you DON'T GET is that visajourney is an immigration community that advocates doing things within the boundaries of the law. AOS'ing from the VWP is not against the law - as you so vehemenently defend. But beyond anecdotal experience, it pushes the envelope as to what we as laypeople should be advising to our fellow forum-dwellers.
In other words - we aren't lawyers. It's a fun little game (moderately educational even) to rattle through the CFR and other regs looking things up. But law is more than what's written in books, or what we can gather from the experiences of members of this community.
You need to ratchet it down a notch or two. Ain't nobody always right.
You have an opinion. Good for you. Yay and all that jazz.
Other people have opinions too. In fact, it's refreshing to have more than one opinion. I find one opinion to be rather dull, boring and - well - narrow minded.
What you DON'T GET is that visajourney is an immigration community that advocates doing things within the boundaries of the law. AOS'ing from the VWP is not against the law - as you so vehemenently defend. But beyond anecdotal experience, it pushes the envelope as to what we as laypeople should be advising to our fellow forum-dwellers.
In other words - we aren't lawyers. It's a fun little game (moderately educational even) to rattle through the CFR and other regs looking things up. But law is more than what's written in books, or what we can gather from the experiences of members of this community.
You need to ratchet it down a notch or two. Ain't nobody always right.
Mate belive me I do get it..... I respect that this forum is for everyone to voice their opinions, but all I have heared by a number of posters is that it is ILLEGAL. They are not saying that it is their opinion they a saying that I am wrong and they are right. Im not giving my opinion I am quoteing immigration law as it is writen in black and white. Weather a CO takes that into consideration is their porocotive. Below I will quote the law and where it is covered.
I have found in the immigration and Nationality act the LAW for what have been saying all along.
here is the section;
© 1/ Other than an alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner, 1a/ subsection (a) shall not be applicable to (1) an alien crewman; (2) 1/ subject to subsection (k), an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 201(b) or a special immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(H) , (I) , (J) , or (K) ) who hereafter continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an application for adjustment of status or who is in unlawful immigration status on the date of filing the application for adjustment of status or who has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States; (3) any alien admitted in transit without visa under section 212(d)(4)© ; (4) an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 201(
) who was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor without a visa under section 212(l) or section 217 ; (5) an alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(S) ; (6) an alien who is deportable under section 237(a)(4)( ; 1a/ (7) 2/ any alien who seeks adjustment of status to that of an immigrant under section 203( and is not in a lawful nonimmigrant status; or (8) any alien who was employed while the alien was an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 274A(h)(3) , or who has otherwise violated the terms of a nonimmigrant visa.
Here is the link to the act
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?...29f8b6ea9f7c64d
Ok this is not my opinion this is the law black and white. I know that not everyone on this board has an attitude but there are some that think they know it all and get on the band wagon.
here is the section;
© 1/ Other than an alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner, 1a/ subsection (a) shall not be applicable to (1) an alien crewman; (2) 1/ subject to subsection (k), an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 201(b) or a special immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(H) , (I) , (J) , or (K) ) who hereafter continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an application for adjustment of status or who is in unlawful immigration status on the date of filing the application for adjustment of status or who has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States; (3) any alien admitted in transit without visa under section 212(d)(4)© ; (4) an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 201(
) who was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor without a visa under section 212(l) or section 217 ; (5) an alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(S) ; (6) an alien who is deportable under section 237(a)(4)( ; 1a/ (7) 2/ any alien who seeks adjustment of status to that of an immigrant under section 203( and is not in a lawful nonimmigrant status; or (8) any alien who was employed while the alien was an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 274A(h)(3) , or who has otherwise violated the terms of a nonimmigrant visa. Here is the link to the act
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?...29f8b6ea9f7c64d
Ok this is not my opinion this is the law black and white. I know that not everyone on this board has an attitude but there are some that think they know it all and get on the band wagon.
Unless you're an immigration lawyer, I wouldn't go around saying that the law is "black and white". Immigration law is among the most complex, simply quoting a paragraph and saying that is the whole story is showing naivety, I'm afraid.
I did see one report (forget where - but not on VJ) of one person who was asked about their immigration intent during their AOS interview.
They were then asked to submit items to support their claim of non immigration intent. They were able to provide certain items ( a mortgage and bills from their house in another country) that satisfied USCIS.
I can look for the link to it and post it if I can find it.
They were then asked to submit items to support their claim of non immigration intent. They were able to provide certain items ( a mortgage and bills from their house in another country) that satisfied USCIS.
I can look for the link to it and post it if I can find it.
QUOTE(Dr_lha @ Feb 21 2007, 02:25 PM)
Unless you're an immigration lawyer, I wouldn't go around saying that the law is "black and white". Immigration law is among the most complex, simply quoting a paragraph and saying that is the whole story is showing naivety, I'm afraid.
I understand that there is a gray area within law, I was a police officer in NSW Australia. All I am saying is that if it was to go before a immigration judge the black and white within the law and it is clearly written, would be what the judge would ultimately rule on. As most people agree, this avenue 9 out of 10 times wouldn't even be an issue.
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 02:33 AM)
QUOTE(Dr_lha @ Feb 21 2007, 02:25 PM)
Unless you're an immigration lawyer, I wouldn't go around saying that the law is "black and white". Immigration law is among the most complex, simply quoting a paragraph and saying that is the whole story is showing naivety, I'm afraid.
I understand that there is a gray area within law, I was a police officer in NSW Australia. All I am saying is that if it was to go before a immigration judge the black and white within the law and it is clearly written, would be what the judge would ultimately rule on. As most people agree, this avenue 9 out of 10 times wouldn't even be an issue.
This is not Australian law.. this is US law and what is written is often just a guide because there could be other areas of the same law that counteracts what the other says... Immigration law is famous for having the INA state one thing in one location.. and another thing in another location and trying to navigate between the two... this is due to the fact that there hasn't been a new immigration law since the 1950's. What you see is a patchwork of law after law after law after law that is stitched together to make this hideous beast... most of the time one patch contradicst another patch becuase Congress didn't actually read any of the other patches or think about how this most recent patch would affect the other patches before they passed the next patch...
There are lots of legal cases where things are not so black and white... there is a reason why immigration law is considered the second most complex law next to patent law... because there are may places where the law seems to contradict itself or remain silent on many issues.
The truth of the matter is that you are trying to give people reassurances where you do not know all of the fact or reasons behind it... you are a very dangerous person and a threat to this community... there is nothing worse that someone who doesn't know all the fact to pick out portions of the argument that favor their position and try to pass it off as proof that their position is iron clad... you are walking on quicksand...
I suggest that you look up the portions of the INA that deal with misrepresentation and admission to the US... that will give you a real reason where the grounds lie... then I suggest that you start to look up cases from the Federal Appeals Circuit, and Board of Immigration Appeals. In all those sources will you find out what the law in practice is... and only then you will get a taste...
This is why attorneys are very useful and necessary... the general position on this fourn has been stated as much due to many, many attorneys who have chimed in... this is one of the gray areas of the law and the guidance of a experienced attorney who has delat with these types of cases is required in order to navigate the inherent risks involved with this type of adjustment. This is not black and white... there is a risk, albeit rather small, that an adjustment case could go south due to an immigrant intent factor.. .it has happened in the past and it will happen in the future... Even though the risk is small,it carries with it the prospect of a rather high penalty... removal from the US... or a rather lengthly and costly legal process to be able to stay...
Some people are fine with the risk... others are not... everyone has their own risk tolerance...
All we should do is alert people on the situations, the risks involved in each, tell them to seek legal advice to see where their own situation fits between the extremes and allow them to make their own decision...
To go off and state that just because one paragraph of the INA states such and such which happens to support your position without the knowledge of the other 300 pages of the INA is extremely irresponsible and is a great disservice to those in the community who wants to find out more information... and we as a community has a responsibility to stop any misinformation or errant position that happnes to come across here...
Very well put zyggy.... I always point out to people that there are risks of doing AOS from VWP/Tourist visa even when it was a spur of the moment marriage...
People should always get help from a good immigration lawyer who has expirence in dealing with AOS from a VWP/tourist visa... everones situations are diffrent and nobody can give a blanket statement that its ok to take this route.. it might be ok for one couple and not for another..
Kez
People should always get help from a good immigration lawyer who has expirence in dealing with AOS from a VWP/tourist visa... everones situations are diffrent and nobody can give a blanket statement that its ok to take this route.. it might be ok for one couple and not for another..
Kez
That was very well put.
I like to think of it this way. I know a guy (i actually do know him) who is spending 6 years in prison for telemarketing. He was selling investments, one day he showed up and a whole bunch of law enforcement agencies were there. As it turns out, they were not legal. He had documents from his employers that everything was legal.
As it turns out, Janet Reno had a bug bear about telemarketers and had never successfully prosecuted one and this was her chance.
So now, if your telemarketer, make sure what your are doing is legal.
What I am trying to say and have said in previous posts. What other have stated throughout this thread. Is that while this may or may not be forgivable, the term used here is forgivable. That would imply that something was done wrong to forgive.
I know for me, I would no be so bold as to go on a forum and tell everyone that i am planning on doing this as the OP did. In all fairness they were asking advice on if this was a good route to go.
I think we have properly answered the OP's question. That while this may be forgivable and very difficult for USCIS to prove, misrepresenting yourself at a Border Crossing or POE could lead to issues down the line.
On a personal note, knowing what I know now, I would not be comfortable doing this.
I like to think of it this way. I know a guy (i actually do know him) who is spending 6 years in prison for telemarketing. He was selling investments, one day he showed up and a whole bunch of law enforcement agencies were there. As it turns out, they were not legal. He had documents from his employers that everything was legal.
As it turns out, Janet Reno had a bug bear about telemarketers and had never successfully prosecuted one and this was her chance.
So now, if your telemarketer, make sure what your are doing is legal.
What I am trying to say and have said in previous posts. What other have stated throughout this thread. Is that while this may or may not be forgivable, the term used here is forgivable. That would imply that something was done wrong to forgive.
I know for me, I would no be so bold as to go on a forum and tell everyone that i am planning on doing this as the OP did. In all fairness they were asking advice on if this was a good route to go.
I think we have properly answered the OP's question. That while this may be forgivable and very difficult for USCIS to prove, misrepresenting yourself at a Border Crossing or POE could lead to issues down the line.
On a personal note, knowing what I know now, I would not be comfortable doing this.
Plus, there's the rest of the pragmatics to consider; if your case is simple, you can file for a K-1 or a K-3 without a lawyer just by educating yourself. If you're just going to enter on the VWP and get married and adjust, you've pretty much made it necessary to hire an attorney.
And it is nice to have many of the possible tripwires sorted out ahead of time: previous divorce certificates, criminal record stuff (how many people discover only when they apply for a K-1 that they have a CIMT though they've travelled many times to the U.S. previously?), birth certificates, getting visas for the kids, &c.
And it is nice to have many of the possible tripwires sorted out ahead of time: previous divorce certificates, criminal record stuff (how many people discover only when they apply for a K-1 that they have a CIMT though they've travelled many times to the U.S. previously?), birth certificates, getting visas for the kids, &c.
QUOTE(zyggy @ Feb 21 2007, 11:28 PM)
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 02:33 AM)
QUOTE(Dr_lha @ Feb 21 2007, 02:25 PM)
Unless you're an immigration lawyer, I wouldn't go around saying that the law is "black and white". Immigration law is among the most complex, simply quoting a paragraph and saying that is the whole story is showing naivety, I'm afraid.
I understand that there is a gray area within law, I was a police officer in NSW Australia. All I am saying is that if it was to go before a immigration judge the black and white within the law and it is clearly written, would be what the judge would ultimately rule on. As most people agree, this avenue 9 out of 10 times wouldn't even be an issue.
This is not Australian law.. this is US law and what is written is often just a guide because there could be other areas of the same law that counteracts what the other says... Immigration law is famous for having the INA state one thing in one location.. and another thing in another location and trying to navigate between the two... this is due to the fact that there hasn't been a new immigration law since the 1950's. What you see is a patchwork of law after law after law after law that is stitched together to make this hideous beast... most of the time one patch contradicst another patch becuase Congress didn't actually read any of the other patches or think about how this most recent patch would affect the other patches before they passed the next patch...
There are lots of legal cases where things are not so black and white... there is a reason why immigration law is considered the second most complex law next to patent law... because there are may places where the law seems to contradict itself or remain silent on many issues.
The truth of the matter is that you are trying to give people reassurances where you do not know all of the fact or reasons behind it... you are a very dangerous person and a threat to this community... there is nothing worse that someone who doesn't know all the fact to pick out portions of the argument that favor their position and try to pass it off as proof that their position is iron clad... you are walking on quicksand...
I suggest that you look up the portions of the INA that deal with misrepresentation and admission to the US... that will give you a real reason where the grounds lie... then I suggest that you start to look up cases from the Federal Appeals Circuit, and Board of Immigration Appeals. In all those sources will you find out what the law in practice is... and only then you will get a taste...
This is why attorneys are very useful and necessary... the general position on this fourn has been stated as much due to many, many attorneys who have chimed in... this is one of the gray areas of the law and the guidance of a experienced attorney who has delat with these types of cases is required in order to navigate the inherent risks involved with this type of adjustment. This is not black and white... there is a risk, albeit rather small, that an adjustment case could go south due to an immigrant intent factor.. .it has happened in the past and it will happen in the future... Even though the risk is small,it carries with it the prospect of a rather high penalty... removal from the US... or a rather lengthly and costly legal process to be able to stay...
Some people are fine with the risk... others are not... everyone has their own risk tolerance...
All we should do is alert people on the situations, the risks involved in each, tell them to seek legal advice to see where their own situation fits between the extremes and allow them to make their own decision...
To go off and state that just because one paragraph of the INA states such and such which happens to support your position without the knowledge of the other 300 pages of the INA is extremely irresponsible and is a great disservice to those in the community who wants to find out more information... and we as a community has a responsibility to stop any misinformation or errant position that happnes to come across here...
you are writing a load of BS mate. You show me anywhere in any US statute which contradicts what I have taken from the Immigration and Naturalization act. If you cant put up the you need to stop going on to save face. The fact is that this is the law which isn't contradicted anywhere in US LAW. If you don't believe me PROVE IT.
I have never once said, because the law states that it is ok, that it is ok for everyone's situation what I have said is that the law states it in black and white that is black ink and white paper. I defiantly know that there is a gray area in law, I obviously know that the law is different in the US as it is in Australia however law is how you interpret it.
Finaly don't you think what you are saying is doing a dissevers to those seeking info. I'm not talking about what I think I'm talking about LAW which is not contradicted by Regs. Just telling people to get a lawyer and thats that is weak advise. I think people should educate themselves if they want get an attorney and then file. You seem to take the high ground with no factual evidence to back up what your saying.
Finaly don't you think what you are saying is doing a dissevers to those seeking info. I'm not talking about what I think I'm talking about LAW which is not contradicted by Regs. Just telling people to get a lawyer and thats that is weak advise. I think people should educate themselves if they want get an attorney and then file. You seem to take the high ground with no factual evidence to back up what your saying.
If you were allowed to just arrive here on a VWP and immigrate then why if you tell the officer at POE that you intend on doing this are you put on the next flight back to the country you have just arrived from....
If it was not against the law then the POE officer would be saying "Welcome to America" and " Don't forget to do AOS"
If you have intent to immigrate then you can not use the VWP....
Kez
If it was not against the law then the POE officer would be saying "Welcome to America" and " Don't forget to do AOS"
If you have intent to immigrate then you can not use the VWP....
Kez
Here is one recent story of someone who had her AOS denied for immigrant intent. She was sent home to go through regular visa processing.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread....975#post4406975
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread....975#post4406975
QUOTE
Hi, just wanted to let you guy's know especially for those awaiting interviews.
I had my interview on 6th February 2007 at the London Embassy. My case was slightly different as I had already lived in the USA, went on a visa waiver and was told by an immigration attorney that I could adjust my status even though I entered the USA already married to a US citizen. Had my adjustment of status interview in the US and was told to leave and file my paperwork back in the uk (this all happened 3.5 years ago), as it is illegal to ajust status if I entered the US already married to a USC, the immigration officer approved my I130 but then lost the paperwork.
Back to the London interview, was told that they would have to do further research and that they would let me know in about 1 week. The C.O was very kind and told me that provided I had told him the truth everything should be ok.
After a nail bitting week, I got my visa today.
I am so happy, three and a half years of sheer hell are finally over! My husband and I will be purchasing our ticket ASAP.
I had my interview on 6th February 2007 at the London Embassy. My case was slightly different as I had already lived in the USA, went on a visa waiver and was told by an immigration attorney that I could adjust my status even though I entered the USA already married to a US citizen. Had my adjustment of status interview in the US and was told to leave and file my paperwork back in the uk (this all happened 3.5 years ago), as it is illegal to ajust status if I entered the US already married to a USC, the immigration officer approved my I130 but then lost the paperwork.
Back to the London interview, was told that they would have to do further research and that they would let me know in about 1 week. The C.O was very kind and told me that provided I had told him the truth everything should be ok.
After a nail bitting week, I got my visa today.
I am so happy, three and a half years of sheer hell are finally over! My husband and I will be purchasing our ticket ASAP.
QUOTE(meauxna @ Feb 22 2007, 03:52 AM)
Here is one recent story of someone who had her AOS denied for immigrant intent. She was sent home to go through regular visa processing.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread....975#post4406975
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread....975#post4406975
QUOTE
Hi, just wanted to let you guy's know especially for those awaiting interviews.
I had my interview on 6th February 2007 at the London Embassy. My case was slightly different as I had already lived in the USA, went on a visa waiver and was told by an immigration attorney that I could adjust my status even though I entered the USA already married to a US citizen. Had my adjustment of status interview in the US and was told to leave and file my paperwork back in the uk (this all happened 3.5 years ago), as it is illegal to ajust status if I entered the US already married to a USC, the immigration officer approved my I130 but then lost the paperwork.
Back to the London interview, was told that they would have to do further research and that they would let me know in about 1 week. The C.O was very kind and told me that provided I had told him the truth everything should be ok.
After a nail bitting week, I got my visa today.
I am so happy, three and a half years of sheer hell are finally over! My husband and I will be purchasing our ticket ASAP.
I had my interview on 6th February 2007 at the London Embassy. My case was slightly different as I had already lived in the USA, went on a visa waiver and was told by an immigration attorney that I could adjust my status even though I entered the USA already married to a US citizen. Had my adjustment of status interview in the US and was told to leave and file my paperwork back in the uk (this all happened 3.5 years ago), as it is illegal to ajust status if I entered the US already married to a USC, the immigration officer approved my I130 but then lost the paperwork.
Back to the London interview, was told that they would have to do further research and that they would let me know in about 1 week. The C.O was very kind and told me that provided I had told him the truth everything should be ok.
After a nail bitting week, I got my visa today.
I am so happy, three and a half years of sheer hell are finally over! My husband and I will be purchasing our ticket ASAP.
Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.
I understand that if one straight out told the POE that they are staying for good that they would be sent packing, however what I am saying is that in reality, what a person has in the back of their minds is something which is in their minds. You are innocent of any intent, unless you make it apparent. Thats reality.
Look I might sound like I am encouraging this avenue, well the question is can you AOS after entering on the VWP answer: yes if you are the immediate relative of a USC. Ziggy I am not a dangerous person, I have dedicated my life to law enforcement, I served in East Timor and Iraq under the UN as a Police Officer. I just think that everyone here is not admitting the law because it has some risk involved and it is just easier to tell everyone that it is illegal. Just because it has a risk involved doesn't make it illegal. crossing the road at a crossing is legal but still carries risk, You should see both points here.
So if just having the tought in your head does not make it ilegal then would the same apply for someone who is questioned by the police because it has come to light that they are planing a murder.... it only in their head they have not done it but they still get charge with attempted murder...
If you have it in your head that you are moving to the US and you have closed down your life in your own country and then enter the USA and the CBP say to you "what is the reason for your Visit?" and you say "oh I am here on Vacation" then you have lied and are commiting fraud... yes it happens and yes people get away with it... is it misrepresentation of the facts... hell yes.. if on the other hand you say "I am here to get married and to start a new life" you will find yourself detained and on the next flight out...
Kez
If you have it in your head that you are moving to the US and you have closed down your life in your own country and then enter the USA and the CBP say to you "what is the reason for your Visit?" and you say "oh I am here on Vacation" then you have lied and are commiting fraud... yes it happens and yes people get away with it... is it misrepresentation of the facts... hell yes.. if on the other hand you say "I am here to get married and to start a new life" you will find yourself detained and on the next flight out...
Kez
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 01:16 PM)
QUOTE(meauxna @ Feb 22 2007, 03:52 AM)
Here is one recent story of someone who had her AOS denied for immigrant intent. She was sent home to go through regular visa processing.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread....975#post4406975
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread....975#post4406975
QUOTE
Hi, just wanted to let you guy's know especially for those awaiting interviews.
I had my interview on 6th February 2007 at the London Embassy. My case was slightly different as I had already lived in the USA, went on a visa waiver and was told by an immigration attorney that I could adjust my status even though I entered the USA already married to a US citizen. Had my adjustment of status interview in the US and was told to leave and file my paperwork back in the uk (this all happened 3.5 years ago), as it is illegal to ajust status if I entered the US already married to a USC, the immigration officer approved my I130 but then lost the paperwork.
Back to the London interview, was told that they would have to do further research and that they would let me know in about 1 week. The C.O was very kind and told me that provided I had told him the truth everything should be ok.
After a nail bitting week, I got my visa today.
I am so happy, three and a half years of sheer hell are finally over! My husband and I will be purchasing our ticket ASAP.
I had my interview on 6th February 2007 at the London Embassy. My case was slightly different as I had already lived in the USA, went on a visa waiver and was told by an immigration attorney that I could adjust my status even though I entered the USA already married to a US citizen. Had my adjustment of status interview in the US and was told to leave and file my paperwork back in the uk (this all happened 3.5 years ago), as it is illegal to ajust status if I entered the US already married to a USC, the immigration officer approved my I130 but then lost the paperwork.
Back to the London interview, was told that they would have to do further research and that they would let me know in about 1 week. The C.O was very kind and told me that provided I had told him the truth everything should be ok.
After a nail bitting week, I got my visa today.
I am so happy, three and a half years of sheer hell are finally over! My husband and I will be purchasing our ticket ASAP.
Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.
I understand that if one straight out told the POE that they are staying for good that they would be sent packing, however what I am saying is that in reality, what a person has in the back of their minds is something which is in their minds. You are innocent of any intent, unless you make it apparent. Thats reality.
Look I might sound like I am encouraging this avenue, well the question is can you AOS after entering on the VWP answer: yes if you are the immediate relative of a USC. Ziggy I am not a dangerous person, I have dedicated my life to law enforcement, I served in East Timor and Iraq under the UN as a Police Officer. I just think that everyone here is not admitting the law because it has some risk involved and it is just easier to tell everyone that it is illegal. Just because it has a risk involved doesn't make it illegal. crossing the road at a crossing is legal but still carries risk, You should see both points here.
I think everyone is considering both points. It appears to me that most everyone is looking at this from a moral perspective.
As a former Law Enforcement officer i would think you would understand intent.
If i have an ounce of drugs vs an ounce of drugs packaged in individual servings. ( I am using the wrong terminology, but you know what i mean) both would be illegal, but with one i am sure i could get further charges for intent to sell. regardless if you saw me selling it.
in reference of the post, regardless if the person get away with it or it could be forgiven, their intent was to violate the law
On a personal note, i would rather tell the person all of this rather then say it is illegal. That being said, i would rather have the person apply for the appropriate visa. This way the intent was always to keep within the law.
QUOTE
Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.
Really......
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 04:16 PM)
Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.
You've changed your tune. According to your previous posts, any immediate relative can get AOS even if they come on VWP. Now you're saying "obvious intent" is illegal and cause for denial? What if an unmarried person arrives on VWP on day 1, gets married on day 2 and files AOS on day 3. Isn't that "obvious intent" as well and therefore illegal and cause for denial of AOS? That contradicts your previous statements doesn't it?
QUOTE(dr_lha @ Feb 21 2007, 05:43 PM)
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 04:16 PM)
Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.
You've changed your tune. According to your previous posts, any immediate relative can get AOS even if they come on VWP. Now you're saying "obvious intent" is illegal and cause for denial? What if an unmarried person arrives on VWP on day 1, gets married on day 2 and files AOS on day 3. Isn't that "obvious intent" as well and therefore illegal and cause for denial of AOS? That contradicts your previous statements doesn't it?
I agree with dr_lha if you are now saying that to already be married to a USC and you enter then you have intent and it is therefore illegal... so what about Parents, Children who enter using VWP with intent? that then must be illegal as well...
The only legal way to do AOS from VWP/tourist visa is for a spur of the moment wedding to happen while you are here on vacation... same goes for a parent I know a couple who's parents came over for 4 weeks vacation... Father died suddenly during the 2nd week, Mother could not face going home alone to live alone and she filed for AOS and now has a greencard... the Mother did not have intent on entry so therefore she was approved for AOS...
Kez
QUOTE(dr_lha @ Feb 22 2007, 08:43 AM)
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 04:16 PM)
Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.
You've changed your tune. According to your previous posts, any immediate relative can get AOS even if they come on VWP. Now you're saying "obvious intent" is illegal and cause for denial? What if an unmarried person arrives on VWP on day 1, gets married on day 2 and files AOS on day 3. Isn't that "obvious intent" as well and therefore illegal and cause for denial of AOS? That contradicts your previous statements doesn't it?
No I haven't change my tune at all. I never said once that if a person who admits intent to remain when entering, that they cant be sent packing, what I have said is that if they are paroled into the US and marry becoming the immediate relative of a USC or if they are mum and dad or children under 21 of a USC that has been paroled into the US on the VWP then they can AOS legally. That's what I have been saying all along. I provided the area of the Immigration Act. If you still choose not to believe it then that is your choice.
A person who intends to immigrate using the VWP/tourist visa and does not admit it at POE is committing an act of fraud... and if at USCIS interview they are asked about their links to there home country and what they did with their house, job, car are they then going to say oh well I sold them... or are they going to lie again... and remember you have to prove you did not have intent, USCIS does not have to prove you did...
I was never asked about my intent but I did have the evidence to prove that I did not have intent on entry...
Kez
I was never asked about my intent but I did have the evidence to prove that I did not have intent on entry...
Kez
QUOTE(Niagaenola @ Feb 22 2007, 09:09 AM)
A person who intends to immigrate using the VWP/tourist visa and does not admit it at POE is committing an act of fraud... and if at USCIS interview they are asked about their links to there home country and what they did with their house, job, car are they then going to say oh well I sold them... or are they going to lie again... and remember you have to prove you did not have intent, USCIS does not have to prove you did...
I was never asked about my intent but I did have the evidence to prove that I did not have intent on entry...
Kez
I was never asked about my intent but I did have the evidence to prove that I did not have intent on entry...
Kez
We are going around in circles.
I understand your opinion, I really do, I dont need you to repect mine. Im ok with that. Im just glad that we all can contribute to a constructive argument. And I do think that it has been constructive belive it or not. Peace
I just think it is not a good idea to be telling people on here that as long as it is only a thought in your head then you are doing nothing wrong....
If someone wishes to take that risk then that is up to them.... if they find themselves in the US and want to do AOS then I will always advise them to have a chat with a immigration lawyer to check out their own case... they dont need to retain the lawyer but they do need to make sure that they are not making things harder for themselves in the greater scheme of things...
Kez
If someone wishes to take that risk then that is up to them.... if they find themselves in the US and want to do AOS then I will always advise them to have a chat with a immigration lawyer to check out their own case... they dont need to retain the lawyer but they do need to make sure that they are not making things harder for themselves in the greater scheme of things...
Kez
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 06:00 PM)
No I haven't change my tune at all. I never said once that if a person who admits intent to remain when entering, that they cant be sent packing,
But the person in that example didn't admit intent on entering, or else they wouldn't have been let in the USA at all. They got into the USA with a VWP with intent to immigrate, and got deported when at their AOS interview, the interviewing officer determined that they had intent to immigrate when they entered on a VWP and didn't admit it to the CBP officer.
That case is the very one you've been saying all along shouldn't happen because of the clause you quoted from the INA, and yet it has. How can you reconcile this with your point of view that anyone who is successful in getting into the USA on a VWP, regardless of intent, can file AOS with no issues?
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 03:00 PM)
QUOTE(dr_lha @ Feb 22 2007, 08:43 AM)
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 04:16 PM)
Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.
You've changed your tune. According to your previous posts, any immediate relative can get AOS even if they come on VWP. Now you're saying "obvious intent" is illegal and cause for denial? What if an unmarried person arrives on VWP on day 1, gets married on day 2 and files AOS on day 3. Isn't that "obvious intent" as well and therefore illegal and cause for denial of AOS? That contradicts your previous statements doesn't it?
No I haven't change my tune at all. I never said once that if a person who admits intent to remain when entering, that they cant be sent packing, what I have said is that if they are paroled into the US and marry becoming the immediate relative of a USC or if they are mum and dad or children under 21 of a USC that has been paroled into the US on the VWP then they can AOS legally. That's what I have been saying all along. I provided the area of the Immigration Act. If you still choose not to believe it then that is your choice.
You're now bringing yet another concept into this--this is the 2nd time you said 'if a person is paroled into the US..'. Parole is a completly other topic, and the paroled person is on much shakier legal standing than if they had been admitted.
I disagree with your assessment about the quoted story as well. The reason this person was bounced was not simply for the fact of being married, although marriage to a USC is a stronger indication of immigrant intent than not.
QUOTE(meauxna @ Feb 21 2007, 03:56 PM)
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 03:00 PM)
QUOTE(dr_lha @ Feb 22 2007, 08:43 AM)
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 04:16 PM)
Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.
You've changed your tune. According to your previous posts, any immediate relative can get AOS even if they come on VWP. Now you're saying "obvious intent" is illegal and cause for denial? What if an unmarried person arrives on VWP on day 1, gets married on day 2 and files AOS on day 3. Isn't that "obvious intent" as well and therefore illegal and cause for denial of AOS? That contradicts your previous statements doesn't it?
No I haven't change my tune at all. I never said once that if a person who admits intent to remain when entering, that they cant be sent packing, what I have said is that if they are paroled into the US and marry becoming the immediate relative of a USC or if they are mum and dad or children under 21 of a USC that has been paroled into the US on the VWP then they can AOS legally. That's what I have been saying all along. I provided the area of the Immigration Act. If you still choose not to believe it then that is your choice.
You're now bringing yet another concept into this--this is the 2nd time you said 'if a person is paroled into the US..'. Parole is a completly other topic, and the paroled person is on much shakier legal standing than if they had been admitted.
I disagree with your assessment about the quoted story as well. The reason this person was bounced was not simply for the fact of being married, although marriage to a USC is a stronger indication of immigrant intent than not.
Thank you, I knew VWP was not parole and did not have the time to look it up to be able to respond correctly.
He does not know the difference between parole and admission. There are other phraseology that is wrong which I usually let slide as it is not material.
I think we are waisting our time, a member of the Flat Earth Society.
I think we are waisting our time, a member of the Flat Earth Society.
QUOTE(Boiler @ Feb 21 2007, 04:41 PM)
He does not know the difference between parole and admission. There are other phraseology that is wrong which I usually let slide as it is not material.
I think we are waisting our time, a member of the Flat Earth Society.
I think we are waisting our time, a member of the Flat Earth Society.
wait....you mean the world is not flat.
say is isn't so
Ok now you all have caused me to have another curiosity.....
"Paroled" and "Admitted" are two separate things? Can you share the difference?
And then.....in a situation such as ours, where AOS is protracted because of the FBI namecheck not being complete.......would it be wise for my husband NOT to travel on Advance Parole?
"Paroled" and "Admitted" are two separate things? Can you share the difference?
And then.....in a situation such as ours, where AOS is protracted because of the FBI namecheck not being complete.......would it be wise for my husband NOT to travel on Advance Parole?
My understanding of the difference between admitted and paroled as explained by our lawyer is this:-
Admitted = Your legal self and your actual self are both inside the USA..
Paroled = Your legal self is waiting at the POE for the approval to be admitted, while your actual self is allowed in..
This means that if you get denied approval then as your legal self is not inside the USA you can not challenge the decision...
hope that makes sense...
Kez
Admitted = Your legal self and your actual self are both inside the USA..
Paroled = Your legal self is waiting at the POE for the approval to be admitted, while your actual self is allowed in..
This means that if you get denied approval then as your legal self is not inside the USA you can not challenge the decision...
hope that makes sense...
Kez
QUOTE(Boiler @ Feb 21 2007, 04:41 PM)
He does not know the difference between parole and admission. There are other phraseology that is wrong which I usually let slide as it is not material.
I think we are waisting our time, a member of the Flat Earth Society.
I think we are waisting our time, a member of the Flat Earth Society.
I agree, B, my point in bringing it up is to show how easy it is to read seemingly plain language that means something completely different in legalese.
I don't care if he sails off the edge--I am concerned about who he takes down with him.
I'd like to remind everyone that I have zero dogs in this fight--I found a better solution than VWP AOS (and oh yes I considered it) so I'm not jealous or rightious or whatever other reasons someone thinks that people are opposed to VWP AOS.
I think the same rules apply for parents and children, btw, but for some reason, no one really beats up on folks who plan for those relatives with this method.
QUOTE(rebeccajo @ Feb 21 2007, 04:59 PM)
Ok now you all have caused me to have another curiosity.....
"Paroled" and "Admitted" are two separate things? Can you share the difference?
And then.....in a situation such as ours, where AOS is protracted because of the FBI namecheck not being complete.......would it be wise for my husband NOT to travel on Advance Parole?
"Paroled" and "Admitted" are two separate things? Can you share the difference?
And then.....in a situation such as ours, where AOS is protracted because of the FBI namecheck not being complete.......would it be wise for my husband NOT to travel on Advance Parole?
Kez summed it up well; that is how I read it described as well.
Some people would say that it is wise for your husband to not leave--it IS one more layer of complication. Folinskyinla has written a lot about it if you want to search out his thoughts. He's never really advised someone in Wes' type of situation out in public (well, he doesn't advise anyway.. )
I've been meaning to PM you, but could post it here too. Thought you'd be interested in this: Expedited FBI Name Check (don't get TOO excited by the title! lol)
QUOTE(rebeccajo @ Feb 21 2007, 05:59 PM)
Ok now you all have caused me to have another curiosity.....
"Paroled" and "Admitted" are two separate things? Can you share the difference?
And then.....in a situation such as ours, where AOS is protracted because of the FBI namecheck not being complete.......would it be wise for my husband NOT to travel on Advance Parole?
"Paroled" and "Admitted" are two separate things? Can you share the difference?
And then.....in a situation such as ours, where AOS is protracted because of the FBI namecheck not being complete.......would it be wise for my husband NOT to travel on Advance Parole?
You could probably write a book on it, somebody probably has, but the effect is the only one that matters. Niagaenola may well be right, I do not know.
Legally you are in a much weaker position if you have problems if you have been paroled in.
The head honcho of the USCIS apparently said something on the lines that he could not understand anybody wishing to put themseleves in that position.
I used AP 3 times with that knowledge, your call.
Parolee - A parolee is an alien, appearing to be inadmissible to the inspecting officer, allowed into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or when that alien's entry is determined to be for significant public benefit. Parole does not constitute a formal admission to the United States and confers temporary status only, requiring parolees to leave when the conditions supporting their parole cease to exist. Types of parolees include:
Deferred inspection: authorized at the port upon alien's arrival; may be conferred by an immigration inspector when aliens appear at a port of entry with documentation, but after preliminary examination, some question remains about their admissibility which can best be answered at their point of destination.
Advance parole: authorized at an INS District office in advance of alien's arrival; may be issued to aliens residing in the United States in other than lawful permanent resident status who have an unexpected need to travel and return, and whose conditions of stay do not otherwise allow for readmission to the United States if they depart.
Port-of-entry parole: authorized at the port upon alien's arrival; applies to a wide variety of situations and is used at the discretion of the supervisory immigration inspector, usually to allow short periods of entry. Examples include allowing aliens who could not be issued the necessary documentation within the required time period, or who were otherwise inadmissible, to attend a funeral and permitting the entry of emergency workers, such as fire fighters, to assist with an emergency.
Humanitarian parole: authorized at INS headquarters or overseas District Offices for "urgent humanitarian reasons" specified in the law. It is used in cases of medical emergency and comparable situations.
Significant Public Benefit Parole: authorized at INS headquarters Office of International Affairs for "significant public benefit" specified in the law. It is generally used for aliens who enter to take part in legal proceedings when there is a benefit to the government. These requests must be submitted by a law enforcement agency.
Overseas parole: authorized at an INS District or suboffice while the alien is still overseas; designed to constitute long-term admission to the United States. In recent years, most of the aliens the INS has processed through overseas parole have arrived under special legislation or international migration agreements.
Deferred inspection: authorized at the port upon alien's arrival; may be conferred by an immigration inspector when aliens appear at a port of entry with documentation, but after preliminary examination, some question remains about their admissibility which can best be answered at their point of destination.
Advance parole: authorized at an INS District office in advance of alien's arrival; may be issued to aliens residing in the United States in other than lawful permanent resident status who have an unexpected need to travel and return, and whose conditions of stay do not otherwise allow for readmission to the United States if they depart.
Port-of-entry parole: authorized at the port upon alien's arrival; applies to a wide variety of situations and is used at the discretion of the supervisory immigration inspector, usually to allow short periods of entry. Examples include allowing aliens who could not be issued the necessary documentation within the required time period, or who were otherwise inadmissible, to attend a funeral and permitting the entry of emergency workers, such as fire fighters, to assist with an emergency.
Humanitarian parole: authorized at INS headquarters or overseas District Offices for "urgent humanitarian reasons" specified in the law. It is used in cases of medical emergency and comparable situations.
Significant Public Benefit Parole: authorized at INS headquarters Office of International Affairs for "significant public benefit" specified in the law. It is generally used for aliens who enter to take part in legal proceedings when there is a benefit to the government. These requests must be submitted by a law enforcement agency.
Overseas parole: authorized at an INS District or suboffice while the alien is still overseas; designed to constitute long-term admission to the United States. In recent years, most of the aliens the INS has processed through overseas parole have arrived under special legislation or international migration agreements.
you people never cease to amaze me.
I say one word (paroled) and you all go over the edge. To the lay person being admitted in and paroled in are the same thing. I'm not saying legally they are.
I'm not jumping on the band wagon either, I never said having clear open intent to remain wasn't fraud. What I said was that if no one knows what your thinking then for goodness sake people in REALITY they haven't broken any laws.
Thinking of murdering someone is only a crime if you make it known.
The FACT is that if a person is ADMITTED into the US (there are you all happy), and subsequently marry they can legally AOS no problem. That is the Law. Prove to me otherwise.
There is a difference in common sense and reality. Yes we all know most people know that they are going to stay when entering on VWP and Marry. Reality now; if they come in as a tourist and that is all they are known to come in as, then get married then it is 100% legal, how hard is that to understand.
Just because I say that doesn't mean that I like it!!!!
There is no gray area here, if someone is denied it wont be for intent UNLESS they make that known at the POE or are married before entering.
Let the band wagon go on, if it makes you all happy. Continue in your fantasy land I don't care but don't criticize me for giving factual advice why you all scare people who choose this option.
I say one word (paroled) and you all go over the edge. To the lay person being admitted in and paroled in are the same thing. I'm not saying legally they are.
I'm not jumping on the band wagon either, I never said having clear open intent to remain wasn't fraud. What I said was that if no one knows what your thinking then for goodness sake people in REALITY they haven't broken any laws.
Thinking of murdering someone is only a crime if you make it known.
The FACT is that if a person is ADMITTED into the US (there are you all happy), and subsequently marry they can legally AOS no problem. That is the Law. Prove to me otherwise.
There is a difference in common sense and reality. Yes we all know most people know that they are going to stay when entering on VWP and Marry. Reality now; if they come in as a tourist and that is all they are known to come in as, then get married then it is 100% legal, how hard is that to understand.
Just because I say that doesn't mean that I like it!!!!
There is no gray area here, if someone is denied it wont be for intent UNLESS they make that known at the POE or are married before entering.
Let the band wagon go on, if it makes you all happy. Continue in your fantasy land I don't care but don't criticize me for giving factual advice why you all scare people who choose this option.
So you can not adjust following entry on a VWP if you are already married?
Vintage meauxna:
meauxna Aug 22 2004, 12:15 pm
Newsgroups: alt.visa.us.marriage-based
From: meauxna <member1851@british_expats.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:15:05 +0000
Local: Sun, Aug 22 2004 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: Entering the US with INTENT TO MARRY
> Hi,
> Thanks for everyone who responded to my previous post earlier this week.
> Everyone keeps mentioning that it is illegal to enter the US on any type of Visa (other than K-3 I guess) with the Intent to Marry a US Citizen.
> While it makes a little bit of sense and I can see where it's coming from - WHO SAYS SO? Does anyone actually know where this is mentioned in the immigration law or is it just a belief that people carry with them from post to post?
> Thanks!
> AZ-GUY
az,
It would be good of you to link this post to your post at visajourney, since the posters there have not discussed the legal end of this as much as this NG has.
You are right to be sceptical about how the 'party line' is repeated, as much mis-information does get repeated on discussion groups.
However, I hope you've noticed by the replies to this post that it *has* been discussed, a lot. I hope you noticed the credentials attached to Folinskyinla and read his replies carefully.
The relevant law is partially contained in the INA:http://tinyurl.com/65byy Section 245: http://tinyurl.com/4fnht and may be influenced by interpretations: http://tinyurl.com/6fcxn
The issue of intent, AOS etc has been discussed from a legal and moral point of view many many times. For a review of previous discussions that discuss specific laws and rules, search Udall, intent, POE, INA and maybe paulgani for good measure. Not for the faint of heart!
My .02: If you feel you are going to rely on a specific point of law to defend your AOS, have someone with you who has studied the INA more than you & I have.Folisnkyinla, from the above thread:
(my bolding)
http://tinyurl.com/38bd5w
That's two times I've given you the search terms--for those of you not yet satisfied with an answer from this thread (and you should NOT be yet satisfied!) do your own research if you want to learn. There isn't a person on this board whose word I would take at face value (no offence intended) and I hope you all feel the same.
I hope you won't take a simple answer that, if it were all so obvious, we could all benefit from and there would be no need for this group.
Who's the rube?
QUOTE
meauxna Aug 22 2004, 12:15 pm
Newsgroups: alt.visa.us.marriage-based
From: meauxna <member1851@british_expats.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:15:05 +0000
Local: Sun, Aug 22 2004 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: Entering the US with INTENT TO MARRY
> Hi,
> Thanks for everyone who responded to my previous post earlier this week.
> Everyone keeps mentioning that it is illegal to enter the US on any type of Visa (other than K-3 I guess) with the Intent to Marry a US Citizen.
> While it makes a little bit of sense and I can see where it's coming from - WHO SAYS SO? Does anyone actually know where this is mentioned in the immigration law or is it just a belief that people carry with them from post to post?
> Thanks!
> AZ-GUY
az,
It would be good of you to link this post to your post at visajourney, since the posters there have not discussed the legal end of this as much as this NG has.
You are right to be sceptical about how the 'party line' is repeated, as much mis-information does get repeated on discussion groups.
However, I hope you've noticed by the replies to this post that it *has* been discussed, a lot. I hope you noticed the credentials attached to Folinskyinla and read his replies carefully.
The relevant law is partially contained in the INA:http://tinyurl.com/65byy Section 245: http://tinyurl.com/4fnht and may be influenced by interpretations: http://tinyurl.com/6fcxn
The issue of intent, AOS etc has been discussed from a legal and moral point of view many many times. For a review of previous discussions that discuss specific laws and rules, search Udall, intent, POE, INA and maybe paulgani for good measure. Not for the faint of heart!
My .02: If you feel you are going to rely on a specific point of law to defend your AOS, have someone with you who has studied the INA more than you & I have.
QUOTE
Hi:
First, you "guess" wrong -- a K-3 is already married. In context you meant K-1. Also, it is notionally legal to enter the US with intent to marry a US citizen and then return to your residence abroad.
But in answer to your question -- 8 USC 1101(a)(15). For those giving advice on how to enter as a non-immigrant visitor with intent to get married -- 8 USC 1324(a)(1) is instructive. Toss in 18 USC 2( and it gets mighty interesting. As for the intending immigrant, it is quite possible that they cross over in 8 USC 1182(a)(6)© territory.
BTW, don't be confused by the "pre-concieved intent" cases on the exercise of discretion in 8 USC 1255(a) adjustment. Although similar, it is quite different. The "PCI" doctrine still treats the intent as a violation of the law and therefore a negative discretionary factor.
"The answer is easy if you take it logically." Paul Simon.
BTW, I have a habit of collecting what I call "quotes of judicial frustration" -- this is a PARTIAL list which I have not updated in a while:
"...we are in the never-never land of the Immigration and Nationality Act, where plain words do not always mean what they say." Yuen Sang Low
v. Attorney General, 479 F.2nd 820 (9th Cir. 1973)
"We have had occasion to note the striking resemblance between some of the laws we are called upon to interpret and King Minos's labyrinth in ancient Crete. The Tax Laws and the Immigration and Nationality Acts are examples we have cited of Congress's ingenuity in passing statutes certain to accelerate the aging process of judges. In this instance, Congress, pursuant to its virtually unfettered power to exclude or deport natives of other countries, and apparently confident of the aphorism that human skill, properly applied, can resolve any enigma that human inventiveness can create, has enacted a baffling skein of provisions for the I.N.S. and courts to disentangle. The fate of the alien faced with imminent deportation often hinges upon narrow issues of statutory interpretation. The instant petition, which requires us to determine whether the petitioner is ineligible for the discretionary relief afforded by Section 212© of the Act, 8 U.S.C. s 1182©, because he has not accumulated seven years of residence in this country since his admission to permanent resident alien status, is no exception. Emboldened by Thesean courage and fortified by a close examination of the statutory language, we believe that the Board of Immigration appeals erred in denying the petitioner relief on the ground that it did, and remand for consideration on a proper basis." Tim Lok v. INS, 548 F.2nd 37 (2nd Cir. 1977).
"In its brief the INS states "the public, of course, has a right to obtain guidance from the regulations for its dealings with the Service." We devoutly hope the INS and those who draft the regulations and Operations Instructions under which it operates will take this statement to heart.
Whatever guidance the regulations furnish to those cognoscenti familiar with INS procedures, this court, despite many years of legal experience, finds that they yield up meaning only grudgingly and that morsels of comprehension must be pried from mollusks of jargon. There is nothing esoteric about the subject matter. The regulations concern simple matters of great concern to human beings, most of them of limited education. They should be so written as to be comprehensible by intelligent laymen and unspecialized lawyers without the aid of both lexicon and inner-circle guide." Kwon v. INS, 646 F.2nd 909 (5th Cir. 1981)
"It would seem that should be a simple issue with a clear answer, but this is immigration law where the issues are seldom simple and the answers are far from clear." Alanis-Bustamante v. Reno 201 F.34d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000)
--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization
First, you "guess" wrong -- a K-3 is already married. In context you meant K-1. Also, it is notionally legal to enter the US with intent to marry a US citizen and then return to your residence abroad.
But in answer to your question -- 8 USC 1101(a)(15). For those giving advice on how to enter as a non-immigrant visitor with intent to get married -- 8 USC 1324(a)(1) is instructive. Toss in 18 USC 2(
and it gets mighty interesting. As for the intending immigrant, it is quite possible that they cross over in 8 USC 1182(a)(6)© territory. BTW, don't be confused by the "pre-concieved intent" cases on the exercise of discretion in 8 USC 1255(a) adjustment. Although similar, it is quite different. The "PCI" doctrine still treats the intent as a violation of the law and therefore a negative discretionary factor.
"The answer is easy if you take it logically." Paul Simon.
BTW, I have a habit of collecting what I call "quotes of judicial frustration" -- this is a PARTIAL list which I have not updated in a while:
"...we are in the never-never land of the Immigration and Nationality Act, where plain words do not always mean what they say." Yuen Sang Low
v. Attorney General, 479 F.2nd 820 (9th Cir. 1973)
"We have had occasion to note the striking resemblance between some of the laws we are called upon to interpret and King Minos's labyrinth in ancient Crete. The Tax Laws and the Immigration and Nationality Acts are examples we have cited of Congress's ingenuity in passing statutes certain to accelerate the aging process of judges. In this instance, Congress, pursuant to its virtually unfettered power to exclude or deport natives of other countries, and apparently confident of the aphorism that human skill, properly applied, can resolve any enigma that human inventiveness can create, has enacted a baffling skein of provisions for the I.N.S. and courts to disentangle. The fate of the alien faced with imminent deportation often hinges upon narrow issues of statutory interpretation. The instant petition, which requires us to determine whether the petitioner is ineligible for the discretionary relief afforded by Section 212© of the Act, 8 U.S.C. s 1182©, because he has not accumulated seven years of residence in this country since his admission to permanent resident alien status, is no exception. Emboldened by Thesean courage and fortified by a close examination of the statutory language, we believe that the Board of Immigration appeals erred in denying the petitioner relief on the ground that it did, and remand for consideration on a proper basis." Tim Lok v. INS, 548 F.2nd 37 (2nd Cir. 1977).
"In its brief the INS states "the public, of course, has a right to obtain guidance from the regulations for its dealings with the Service." We devoutly hope the INS and those who draft the regulations and Operations Instructions under which it operates will take this statement to heart.
Whatever guidance the regulations furnish to those cognoscenti familiar with INS procedures, this court, despite many years of legal experience, finds that they yield up meaning only grudgingly and that morsels of comprehension must be pried from mollusks of jargon. There is nothing esoteric about the subject matter. The regulations concern simple matters of great concern to human beings, most of them of limited education. They should be so written as to be comprehensible by intelligent laymen and unspecialized lawyers without the aid of both lexicon and inner-circle guide." Kwon v. INS, 646 F.2nd 909 (5th Cir. 1981)
"It would seem that should be a simple issue with a clear answer, but this is immigration law where the issues are seldom simple and the answers are far from clear." Alanis-Bustamante v. Reno 201 F.34d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000)
--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization
(my bolding)
http://tinyurl.com/38bd5w
That's two times I've given you the search terms--for those of you not yet satisfied with an answer from this thread (and you should NOT be yet satisfied!) do your own research if you want to learn. There isn't a person on this board whose word I would take at face value (no offence intended) and I hope you all feel the same.
I hope you won't take a simple answer that, if it were all so obvious, we could all benefit from and there would be no need for this group.
Who's the rube?
Forget it. One rule for married people and one rule for single I guess.
QUOTE(nathmc31 @ Feb 21 2007, 05:37 PM)
you people never cease to amaze me.
I say one word (paroled) and you all go over the edge.
I say one word (paroled) and you all go over the edge.
I love new people.This is actually a very civil and informative discussion. Nothing like what can occur. And has.
Meauxna, you are a good vintage.
QUOTE(meauxna @ Feb 21 2007, 08:20 PM)
QUOTE(rebeccajo @ Feb 21 2007, 04:59 PM)
Ok now you all have caused me to have another curiosity.....
"Paroled" and "Admitted" are two separate things? Can you share the difference?
And then.....in a situation such as ours, where AOS is protracted because of the FBI namecheck not being complete.......would it be wise for my husband NOT to travel on Advance Parole?
"Paroled" and "Admitted" are two separate things? Can you share the difference?
And then.....in a situation such as ours, where AOS is protracted because of the FBI namecheck not being complete.......would it be wise for my husband NOT to travel on Advance Parole?
Kez summed it up well; that is how I read it described as well.
Some people would say that it is wise for your husband to not leave--it IS one more layer of complication. Folinskyinla has written a lot about it if you want to search out his thoughts. He's never really advised someone in Wes' type of situation out in public (well, he doesn't advise anyway.. )
I've been meaning to PM you, but could post it here too. Thought you'd be interested in this: Expedited FBI Name Check (don't get TOO excited by the title! lol)
Well Kez, Mo, Jane, Boiler and all - thanks for that little revelation. I've always wondered if it would be wise for us to travel. There was just some little bug about it that bothered me but I had never bothered to research it.
I love how if you READ you can learn something new each day. Thanks again to you all.
And Mo...thanks for the link. I've already patched it to the FBI namecheck thread.
QUOTE(dr_lha @ Feb 21 2007, 07:44 PM)
Forget it. One rule for married people and one rule for single I guess.
We are still waiting for the font of knowledge to pronounce.
I would agree with Meauxna, double check everything, which smells in anyway odd, even advice from a Lawyer. It is your bottom on the line, not theirs.
And always bear in mind it is not a precise science.
But that's life anyway.
Awesome research by Meauxna btw, mega kudos
While doing some research i discovered this:
I thought it very interesting. Being that this is how they evaluate you for naturalization.
QUOTE
(E) False Testimony . An individual who gives false testimony during the statutory period for the purpose of obtaining any benefit under the Act is precluded from establishing good moral character. See section 101(f)(6) of the Act and 8 CFR 316.10((2)(vi) . The most common occurrence of false testimony is failure to disclose a criminal or other adverse record, but false testimony can occur in any area. False testimony may relate to facts about lawful admission, absences, residence, marital status or infidelity, employment, organizational membership, tax filing information, or any of the multitudes of facts that are developed during a naturalization interview. False testimony, in any area, occurs when the individual deliberately intends to deceive the governm ent while under oath in order to obtain citizenship, regardless of whether the information provided in the false testimony was material, in the sense that if given truthfully it would have made the applicant ineligible for naturalization. For example, an applicant may conceal an arrest that occurred outside or within the statutory period, believing that the disclosure of the arrest would bar his or her naturalization, even though the arrest was minor in nature and would not have an adverse effect upon his o r her eligibility. The applicant’s false testimony, in itself, denotes a lack of good moral character and renders the applicant ineligible for naturalization on the present application and on any future naturalization application until the false testimony date is outside of the statutory period.
There are three elements to false testimony that must exist for a naturalization application to be denied on false testimony grounds. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Kungys v. United States , 485 U.S. 759, 780-81 (1988) [ Appendix 74-6 ], the elements of false testimony are:
• Oral statements. “Testimony” for the purposes of section 101(f)(6) of the Act must be oral. False statements in an application, whether or not under oath, do not constitute “testimony”. Falsified documents do not constitute “testimony”. Further, the oral statement must be an affirmative misrepresentation. The Kungys decision makes it clear that there has been no false testimony if facts are merely concealed. Thus, incomplete but otherwise truthful answers will not rise to the level of false testimony. Concealment of the existence of a conviction is not false testimony. Fo r example, an individual has two convictions in the statutory period: one DUI conviction and one conviction for Assault and Battery. In response to the “arrest” question, the applicant testifies, “Yes, I was arrested for DUI and given one year probation.” That testimony is not false. It does conceal the existence of the other conviction, but is not an affirmative misrepresentation and is not, therefore, false testimony. To solve this problem, ALWAYS ask a follow-up question after a known concealment, such a s, “Are there any other arrests?” Assuming the applicant answers “no”, he has now provided false testimony.
• Under Oath . The oral statement must be made under oath in order to constitute false testimony. Oral statements to officers that are not under oath do not constitute false testimony.
• With Subjective Intent to obtain an immigration benefit . An individual must be providing the false testimony in order to obtain an immigration benefit. False testimony provided for any other reason does not preclude an individual from establishing good moral character. Subjective intent is often the most difficult aspect of sustaining a false testimony denial. As the government acknowledges in Kungys v. the United States :
“It is only dishonesty accompanied by this precise intent that Congress found morally unacceptable. Willful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character.”
(2)(vi) . The most common occurrence of false testimony is failure to disclose a criminal or other adverse record, but false testimony can occur in any area. False testimony may relate to facts about lawful admission, absences, residence, marital status or infidelity, employment, organizational membership, tax filing information, or any of the multitudes of facts that are developed during a naturalization interview. False testimony, in any area, occurs when the individual deliberately intends to deceive the governm ent while under oath in order to obtain citizenship, regardless of whether the information provided in the false testimony was material, in the sense that if given truthfully it would have made the applicant ineligible for naturalization. For example, an applicant may conceal an arrest that occurred outside or within the statutory period, believing that the disclosure of the arrest would bar his or her naturalization, even though the arrest was minor in nature and would not have an adverse effect upon his o r her eligibility. The applicant’s false testimony, in itself, denotes a lack of good moral character and renders the applicant ineligible for naturalization on the present application and on any future naturalization application until the false testimony date is outside of the statutory period.There are three elements to false testimony that must exist for a naturalization application to be denied on false testimony grounds. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Kungys v. United States , 485 U.S. 759, 780-81 (1988) [ Appendix 74-6 ], the elements of false testimony are:
• Oral statements. “Testimony” for the purposes of section 101(f)(6) of the Act must be oral. False statements in an application, whether or not under oath, do not constitute “testimony”. Falsified documents do not constitute “testimony”. Further, the oral statement must be an affirmative misrepresentation. The Kungys decision makes it clear that there has been no false testimony if facts are merely concealed. Thus, incomplete but otherwise truthful answers will not rise to the level of false testimony. Concealment of the existence of a conviction is not false testimony. Fo r example, an individual has two convictions in the statutory period: one DUI conviction and one conviction for Assault and Battery. In response to the “arrest” question, the applicant testifies, “Yes, I was arrested for DUI and given one year probation.” That testimony is not false. It does conceal the existence of the other conviction, but is not an affirmative misrepresentation and is not, therefore, false testimony. To solve this problem, ALWAYS ask a follow-up question after a known concealment, such a s, “Are there any other arrests?” Assuming the applicant answers “no”, he has now provided false testimony.
• Under Oath . The oral statement must be made under oath in order to constitute false testimony. Oral statements to officers that are not under oath do not constitute false testimony.
• With Subjective Intent to obtain an immigration benefit . An individual must be providing the false testimony in order to obtain an immigration benefit. False testimony provided for any other reason does not preclude an individual from establishing good moral character. Subjective intent is often the most difficult aspect of sustaining a false testimony denial. As the government acknowledges in Kungys v. the United States :
“It is only dishonesty accompanied by this precise intent that Congress found morally unacceptable. Willful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character.”
I thought it very interesting. Being that this is how they evaluate you for naturalization.
QUOTE(Boiler @ Feb 21 2007, 08:44 PM)
QUOTE(dr_lha @ Feb 21 2007, 07:44 PM)
Forget it. One rule for married people and one rule for single I guess.
We are still waiting for the font of knowledge to pronounce.
I would agree with Meauxna, double check everything, which smells in anyway odd, even advice from a Lawyer. It is your bottom on the line, not theirs.
And always bear in mind it is not a precise science.
But that's life anyway.
Awesome research by Meauxna btw, mega kudos
Oh well, ha ha.. easy if you use the two magic words.. lol.
psst.. thought it was 'bot bot' on the line?? Have I been mistranslating?! heheheh
[/quote]
Oh well, ha ha.. easy if you use the two magic words.. lol.
psst.. thought it was 'bot bot' on the line?? Have I been mistranslating?! heheheh
[/quote]
Still chortle when I hear fanny.....
Lets see, backside, derrier would also work.
Oh well, ha ha.. easy if you use the two magic words.. lol.
psst.. thought it was 'bot bot' on the line?? Have I been mistranslating?! heheheh
[/quote]
Still chortle when I hear fanny.....
Lets see, backside, derrier would also work.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.