Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CatherineA

  • Rank
    Platinum Member
  • Member # 197025

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • City
  • State

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Adjustment of Status (pending)
  • Place benefits filed at
    National Benefits Center
  • Country
    Costa Rica

Immigration Timeline

Recent Profile Visitors

5,359 profile views
  1. This is not a generational thing. Do you think everyone here got married before internet and smartphones? Everyone who has been in an international relationship in the past 10 +years has used Skype and messaging and all that, regardless of if they're Boomers, Xers or Millenials. Also most of the people on this thread are Millenials, older than you perhaps but Millenials nontheless. Why would he have thought that when he was arrivingin Canada with a certain visa he'd had to work out in advance? Did hr think ESTA was a work program and WHY would he think that when it is very clearly spelled out otherwise? This is deeply concerning in terms of judgement and responsibility. No Millenials I'm guessing because all of us are used to deciding to get married after an online only relationship? It's really not. It's clear that you think you're different but.... no. Everyone thinks their love is different and special and in a way, of course each love story is unique. But it doesn't change the fact that it is usually best to actually meet and spend time together before deciding to get married. Maybe not strictly necessary, I'll give you that, but there's literally no harm in it so why throw caution to the wind?
  2. Yes, but you're still on Step 2, waiting to get to Step 3 which is receipt of NOA1. That goes to the petitioner from USCIS. Also, when you receive a checklist step 8-- that comes from the US Embassy not Canadian Immigration. Also, they seem to email (or at least they did from my husband's country). Now, if I've misunderstood, and you are on steps 7 and 8, then you may want to get in contact with the US embassy and see if they sent something. Also, fill in your timeline, it makes helping a lot easier
  3. Multiple illegal entries

    Right so two entries though. The one he admitted to in 2001, and another in 2009. They don't care about "continuous residence". They care about the number of times you cross the border illegally. So it doesn't matter if he left the US for 2 hours or 2 years. So they'll see his claim that he EWI'd (entered without inspection) in 2001. Then (maybe?) see that he exited in 2009. And then see that he applied from inside the US in 2017, and not see a legal entry. They can connect the dots and see the second EWI. Maybe they won't know when the second EWI was but they don't care if it was just a few weeks. They (may) know that it happened just by the fact that he was in the US in 2017 and doesn't have a record of legal entry. The only thing possible is... did he come on some kind of visa in 2001? Then overstayed it, left for Costa Rica and came back without inspection? Then the 601-a works. But it doesn't sound like it. So the big question is will USCIS/ State Department know that he left and came back in 2009? I personally don't know that answer. His lawyer probably would, but he's not being honest with his lawyer. I'd reeeallllly encourage this friend to come clean to the lawyer because he's about to dig this hole even deeper--- lying for immigration benefits is a lifetime ban!
  4. Multiple illegal entries

    It's not "okay" but that's what the 601-a waiver process is. For people without a legal entry, they can't adjust status because there is not status to adjust FROM. So they need to apply for a fiance or spouse visa, including medicals and interview abroad. But because they entered without inspection, they are inadmissible. a 601-a waiver applies to waive that inadmissibility so that they CAN leave the US for the interview and be allowed back in. They could leave for their home countries as soon as they apply and hope it is approved but because they're not sure if it will be approved, most people stay as long as they can and again while not "okay" is understandable. However. The 601-a waiver works only if they've entered without inspection *once*. Not twice. Her friend has done this twice, but his lawyer only knows about the once. OP is thinking that the US government will know about the second time because they will see his claim that he was in the US continually from 2001 but that in 2009 he got on an airplane for Costa Rica. And then in 2017 is back in the US. Simple math shows two entries without inspection.
  5. They haven't even met in person once and she's shopping around for where they can get married. Most people would find that a little extreme, even those who got married young and quickly. On top of it, they both, but he in particular, have just demonstrated *spectacularly* poor judgement in their immigration "plan" (in that they didn't have one at all) and in so doing were unknowingly attempting to commit fraud AND are facing some pretty serious repercussions for it (his lack of VWP will make them conducing an international relationship all the more difficult). It didn't have to happen this way if either of them had thought to look up the requirements to move/work in another country (or read the thing that comes before "Yes, I have read and understand the information and agree to these terms") before *quitting a job* and buying a plane ticket that couldn't have been inexpensive (or at least not by OP's standards as she's now complaining that they don't have enough money for multiple visits). That's not necessarily an age thing but it is for SURE a maturity and general preparedness thing. Of course young and quick marriages work out, and this one easily could as well. But it's a risk that there's no reason to take, especially when they're so young and have time on their side. There really is no reason (beyond desire) to keep the pedal to the metal but there there are plenty of reasons to slow down and take more deliberate steps. No one gets married thinking it's a mistake and thinking they're doomed for divorce, and yet some marriages are mistakes and end in divorce. So why not spend just a wee bit of time to really make sure? Again, they have not even seen each other face to face ONCE and very clearly haven't thought much if any of this through. It's simply irresponsible to not try to encourage a bit of level-headedness and to demonstrate that alternate arrangements are possible and practical.
  6. You've just got to make it work. My husband and I both took second jobs to fund my continued visits. I got really good at the credit card travel points game (I haven't paid for a flight since October 2015 at this point). You just deal with the distance. It's difficult, we know. We ALL know. You are preaching to the choir here as just about everyone on this site has been through an extended period of time in a long distance international relationship. We've ALL been there done that, seen others go through it, and we're pretty much all saying "whoa there, sparky, hit the breaks for a minute". You clearly don't want to hear this but I think we'd all feel irresponsible for not saying it, especially as most of us have been here long enough to have seen some real go down.
  7. When he applied for ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization)-- which is what makes his visa-free travel to the US possible (or made, that's gone now) he read and agreed to this (bolding mine): "The Electronic System for Travel Authorization performs checks against law enforcement databases. All travelers seeking admission to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program are required to obtain an electronic travel authorization using this system prior to being granted boarding. If your electronic travel authorization application is approved, it establishes that you are eligible to travel, but does not establish that you are admissible to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. Upon arrival to the United States, you will be inspected by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer at a port of entry who may determine that you are inadmissible under the Visa Waiver Program or for any reason under United States law. A determination that you are not eligible for electronic travel authorization does not preclude you from applying for a visa to travel to the United States. All information provided by you, or on your behalf by a designated third party, must be true and correct. An electronic travel authorization may be revoked at any time and for any reason, such as new information influencing eligibility. You may be subject to administrative or criminal penalties if you knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in an electronic travel authorization application submitted by you or on your behalf. WARNING: If upon application for admission to the United States at a port of entry you are admitted under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) by a US Customs and Border Protection Officer, you may not accept unauthorized employment; or attend school; or represent the foreign information media during your visit under the program. You may not apply for: 1) a change of nonimmigrant status, 2) an extension of stay, or 3) adjustment of status to temporary or permanent resident, unless eligible under section 245(c)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Violation of these terms will subject you to REMOVAL. Please indicate you have read and understand the information provided above: Yes, I have read and understand the information and agree to these terms. No, I need additional clarification or I decline to provide acknowledgment. So, the fact that he read this and still decided that this was the way to move permanently/ get a job or work permit in the US is... not great. Or didn't read it at all. Neither of those options are any way to start a new life with someone. I'd encourage you to really think about that action for a little while. Beyond that, you both are free to meet in the UK or any third country of your choosing. His work visa in Canada won't prevent him from entering as a tourist (or shouldn't-- he'd need to check with the Canadians though just to be sure) and you can enter the UK visa-free as a visitor. Anything beyond being a visitor and you'll need to look into visa requirements. He's not likely to get a visit visa at this point, and his visa-free privileges are over.This is the same the world over. People with strong passports (US, UK and others) can visit visa free in most of the world (BUT CHECK-- many countries require visas for everyone) but most countries require some kind of pre-arrangement for immigration or work. It's normal to not realize this-- we all had to learn it sometime, but most people figure it out before we quit jobs and get on a trans-Atlantic flight.
  8. Whether you intended to or not, you kind of did, or it seemed that you did. When I said that the program is to add diversity to the annual immigrant population, not the US population as a whole and you asked how the one won't effect the other it came across that you were thinking that the demographic makeup of the DV immigrants would have meaningful impact on the demographic makeup of the US population. It just can't, not meaningfully, in those small of numbers in comparison to the existing size and growth of the US population.
  9. Yes but because they meet the eligibility criteria, not because an Irish American congressman is pulling strings. Why Northern Ireland is split out on its own probably has a bit more to do with the US's overall foreign policy than ethnic preference, but I will give you that that is a strange choice.
  10. Yes that adds people. You were previously talking about those people changing the demographic makeup of the US population as a whole, not sheer numbers and carbon footprints as you are now. So yes clearly 500,000 additional people is 500,000 additional people. Still not enough to meaningfully shift the demographics of the US population, which is growing through births and other forms of immigration much quicker than the DV lottery immigrants could possibly make statistical impact on.
  11. It's by country not region. Which is nationality not ethnicity. Hard for people to separate or not, those things are not the same thing. Clearly it's hard for some folks here to understand which is half the reason this thread is as long as it is. The eligibility is based on each country's previous 5 years, how many people from that country immigrated to the US. So, it is tied to the annual immigrant population, not the makeup of the US population as a whole. No kidding that the immigrant population eventually adds to the US population. But it doesn't change the fact that the measurement is based on the annual immigrant population. It's the difference between saying that 50,000 Salvadorans immigrated to the US in the last 5 years and so they aren't eligible for the DV and saying that Salvadorans are a small fraction of the existing US population so we should open it to them (or vice versa, almost no Salvadorans immigrated in the past 5 years but they are represented heavily in our existing population so we won't open DV to them). If you can't see how this is a fundamentally different thing, I don't know what to tell you. Also, that 500,000 over 10 years about one tenth of one percent of the present US population. Sure it adds, but at nowhere near the rate of population growth generally and all other forms of immigration. So tying eligibility to this narrow/small number really isn't going to swing the overall US population in any meaningful way.
  12. And that's fine I'm not arguing the merit of the purpose of the program. I do think it's important for people to stop thinking that the purpose is to add ethnic diversity to the US population because it simply isn't and isn't even tied to the makeup of the US population at all.
  13. Was being the operative word and tense. Is not now.
  14. That's where you and everyone else keeps getting confused. It has nothing to do with the makeup of the US population. It has to do with the makeup of the annual immigrant population. Those are what are the vastly different things. 325 million people vs 1 million people, just for starts. And I said, it is my understanding that the program is a sort of soft diplomacy/goodwill sort of thing. It's not about what the US needs in its population, it's about its relations with other counties, and a very easy/cheap way to score a positive, or even balance out a negative perception (like "the US doesn't like people from my country because it prefers people from my enemy neighbor's country you can tell because they let in thousands of them with work and family visas and no one from mine"). I'm not arguing the merits of it in that regard I'm just trying to get people (specifically the person who asked) to understand what the term "diversity" means in this context.
  15. Again, it's not to make the US more diverse. It is to add some diversity to the overall annual immigrant population. Those are two vastly different things. It's not like some private school looking for token minorities or whatever people seem to be picturing. Also, it is diversity by nationality not ethnicity, which are also different things. It's basically a diplomatic tool, a goodwill gesture. For the low "price" of 50k immigrants (who have to meet some educational and employment standards), we get some pretty pro-USA folks in the form of these immigrants' friends and family etc. Needed or not good idea or not, is not my interest in this topic. But that's the gist of it.