Petitioning parent on a Tourist Visa

[DaveSana 13]

Okay, I think I see what you are saying.

That is how it works.

Are there logical inconsistencies, yes. Are there ways to game the system, yep.

But the law is what it is, and that is how it is at this point.

Thanks for the lesson.

Dave

Mounat, Aaron, and TransBorderWife....THANKS!

Your generosity is appreciated.

Cheers,

Dave

[aaron2020 11,651]

Here is the jist of everything.

Matter of Battista and Matter of Cavazos states that USCIS can not deny the AOS of an Immediate Relative of a USC for immigrant intent alone if there are no other issues.

CBP and the US Embassy are not part of this. CBP can still deny entry for immigrant intent. The US Embassy can still deny a visa for immigrant intent.

When a person files to AOS and that person is doing so based on being an Immediate Relative (parent, spouse, or unmarried child under 21), then USCIS can not deny issuing a green card if immigrant intent is the only thing they have.

Filing for AOS as the IR of a USC is the magic spot where the rule changes.

[DaveSana 13]

Great summary, Aaron.

Thanks for that.

Yes, the AOS filing event really matters.

I will reflect on this for some time.

Thanks again,

Dave

[aaron2020 11,651]

People come here looking for LEGAL advice for their situations. They do not come here for soapbox speeches on what is fair. They came here for LEGAL options, not your opinions on what the law should be and how their LEGAL options are "unfair."

[JFH 12,189]

"They have already been admitted by CBP" - is your reason for dismissing the issue of fraud!!!

Are you serious, JFH!!!

Your assumption/presumption, while convenient, is not compelling.

Intent can absolutely be found subsequent to port-of-entry.

They can very well be denied AOS, and told to leave and apply for the appropriate immigrant visa.

After three days!!! Get real!

Dave

I'm deadly serious. They have not been proven to have done anything wrong. I was of course being sarcastic when I said that they changed their minds very quickly. It goes without saying that three days is an extremely short space of time to decide to abandon all those strong ties to their home land that they went to great lengths to demonstrate to the CO at interview. But they haven't broken any law IF they didn't lie upon entry.

What's your problem with it anyway? I'd have sympathy for your outburst if you had a particularly long and painful journey to get your wife into the country but I see it took all of 26 days. My journey has taken over 300 days so far and we are not done yet and we have had a previous denial for a UK spouse visa for my husband. We have been trying to be together for two years and I'm not getting my panties in a bunch over a parent wanting to AOS. When your wife has citizenship and her parents visit and ask if they can stay, what will you say? From what I've seen, the Filipino wives seem to be the most prolific at bringing parents in so it's highly likely to happen to you.

[Mounat 74]

My specific question is why spell it out so plainly for those yet to come, who ARE planning fraud. Forget if OP here is engaged in fraud because that ship has sailed. What happens to the next person Googling about how to get their parents here quick and easy? If that person comes here and reads "yep, even if they lied every step of the way, they're a-ok, Bravo, good man! you found the secret loophole! They can't touch you now! Best of luck and good job".....

The State Department (in charge of embassies and consulates) and the CBP (in charge of POEs) are well aware of your concerns. Yet the law is what it is and they have to follow it.

[aaron2020 11,651]

The OP has been given the correct legal option.

Sorry that some of you don't agree or like that LEGAL option. There is already a thread where you can discuss whether AOS on visitor visas, the VWP, etc. should be allowed. Go there if you want to post.

[Cathi 5,607]

Malania Trump worked illegally on a tourist visa. She got an H1B.

2 of Donald Trump's 3 wives are immigrants.

If Donald Trump stops all of this, how is he going to find his next foreign bride?

Immigrant intent is irrelevant once the parent was admitted into the US. Google Matter of Battista and Matter of Cavazos. You are missing a big part of US laws.

[Pennycat 880]

Giving people their legal options is furthering fraud? What should we do, ignore people asking for LEGAL help?

Since this is a private website, perhaps you should bring your concerns to the attention of the owners of VJ.

If it doesn't make freaking sense to you, then correct LEGAL advice should not be given. Check.

You'll note my original question was about the cheering on of it. The attitude, is very much "haha good job you made it" which is.... I don't know. Overly permissive perhaps? You can provide answers, obviously but I think it's the whole "good job pulling one over" that is off-putting. THAT is what doesn't make any sense. And instead of ignoring them, you could (should? I don't know that's for the VJ owners) maybe, for the interest of future Googlers, spell out that if (that is a conditional word, meaning that you are not accusing the question asker of anything) they had lied at any point in the process, they were taking a big risk and were definitely committing fraud but since they're here either way here's how to proceed. But doing that gets you thread-banned so go figure.

Plus, no one ever finds it relevant to mention to the question askers that the person undergoing AOS will be effectively stuck in the US for several months. Which for someone who was most assuredly not planning to emigrate, can be a real logistical hurdle, what with all the close ties abroad and everything. Why not give them this information because they are clearly clueless about the process because that could be a really important piece of information? They may not have traveled with their birth certificate, because that something one does not commonly do, and that, too can be a real hurdle. Nope, it's all "atta boy" all the time. And then when people DO bring up logistical hurdles such as this, those concerns often get minimized ("no, AP does not take several months, most people get it in 60 days or less"....which is false but whatever) or the writer gets accused of accusing people of fraud. It's absurd.

The OP has been given the correct legal option.

Sorry that some of you don't agree or like that LEGAL option. There is already a thread where you can discuss whether AOS on visitor visas, the VWP, etc. should be allowed. Go there if you want to post.

Isn't it a TOS violation to tell someone where they can and cannot post?

[Pennycat 880]

The State Department (in charge of embassies and consulates) and the CBP (in charge of POEs) are well aware of your concerns. Yet the law is what it is and they have to follow it.

Yeah. I'm aware of what the State Department and CBP does but thanks. And that's sort of the broader point here. Implicitly providing a how-to guide to get around those two hurdles.

[aaron2020 11,651]

You'll note my original question was about the cheering on of it. The attitude, is very much "haha good job you made it" which is.... I don't know. Overly permissive perhaps? You can provide answers, obviously but I think it's the whole "good job pulling one over" that is off-putting. THAT is what doesn't make any sense. And instead of ignoring them, you could (should? I don't know that's for the VJ owners) maybe, for the interest of future Googlers, spell out that if (that is a conditional word, meaning that you are not accusing the question asker of anything) they had lied at any point in the process, they were taking a big risk and were definitely committing fraud but since they're here either way here's how to proceed. But doing that gets you thread-banned so go figure.

Plus, no one ever finds it relevant to mention to the question askers that the person undergoing AOS will be effectively stuck in the US for several months. Which for someone who was most assuredly not planning to emigrate, can be a real logistical hurdle, what with all the close ties abroad and everything. Why not give them this information because they are clearly clueless about the process because that could be a really important piece of information? They may not have traveled with their birth certificate, because that something one does not commonly do, and that, too can be a real hurdle. Nope, it's all "atta boy" all the time. And then when people DO bring up logistical hurdles such as this, those concerns often get minimized ("no, AP does not take several months, most people get it in 60 days or less"....which is false but whatever) or the writer gets accused of accusing people of fraud. It's absurd.

Isn't it a TOS violation to tell someone where they can and cannot post?

It's a TOS violation to derail a thread with side discussions on politics that does not pertain to the OP.

How is it a TOS violation to tell you where you can post? If people need help with a K-1, I will tell them to post there. If people want to discuss running this website or politics, I would tell them to go to the subforums on those subjects.

Please show me where I said you can not post in this thread?

There is a thread where you can discuss the wisdom of allowing people to AOS on visitor visas. Why insist on continuing it here in violation of the TOS?

Edited December 5, 2016 by aaron2020

[DaveSana 13]

This site can, and probably does, serve different people, different ways.

That can include legal options, procedural suggestions, camaraderie, and just plain information...like what things cost, where things are.

It would be great if people shared their views in a civil and respectful manner.

Sadly, there is less of that here than there could be, in my view.

There is a lot of work to do.

We can all do better, I suspect.

Cheers,

Dave

Edited December 5, 2016 by DaveSana

[Ketsuban 1,033]

I think OP probably has their answer now anyway and this thread has derailed quite a bit.

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

as this thread continues to be sidetracked, and the op has received constructive advice,

this thread is now closed. do not restart this thread.

charles
vj moderation