AOS & I-130

[pushbrk 12,092]

Well, here is a case of my friend, a bit different but worth mentioning here.

My friend's wife entered US from Canada on a visit visa and her visa expired later. 6 months after expiry of visit visa, my friend (who was a PR back then) filed I-130 for her. They initially planned to wait till the case becomes current and then his wife would go back to Canada and get the rest of the things done there. In 2007, my friend became US citizen and his petition got approved. His wife never left US since then and they talked to a lawyer to see if they can file for I485 so his wife does not have to leave US. Lawyer filed for I485 and things are in process. Lawyer told my firend that US citizen's spouse or parents or children under 18 are always eligible for 'adjustment of status' as long as they have entered the country on a valid visa and has been inspected, even if the visa has expired later and they lost there status.

Take away = I guess, lkekandi does have an option here...

Rest is left for the experts!!

Actually, it may ultimately be up to a judge, so people should be prepared when they engage in unconventional means, even uninentionally.

Again, rather than arguing, why not simply respond to the OP directly with your take on the situation and any advice?

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Well, here is a case of my friend, a bit different but worth mentioning here.

My friend's wife entered US from Canada on a visit visa and her visa expired later. 6 months after expiry of visit visa, my friend (who was a PR back then) filed I-130 for her. They initially planned to wait till the case becomes current and then his wife would go back to Canada and get the rest of the things done there. In 2007, my friend became US citizen and his petition got approved. His wife never left US since then and they talked to a lawyer to see if they can file for I485 so his wife does not have to leave US. Lawyer filed for I485 and things are in process. Lawyer told my firend that US citizen's spouse or parents or children under 18 are always eligible for 'adjustment of status' as long as they have entered the country on a valid visa and has been inspected, even if the visa has expired later and they lost there status.

Take away = I guess, lkekandi does have an option here...

Rest is left for the experts!!

Actually, it may ultimately be up to a judge, so people should be prepared when they engage in unconventional means, even uninentionally.

Again, rather than arguing, why not simply respond to the OP directly with your take on the situation and any advice?

The whole idea of VJ is that we can discuss all the options available to people who are looking for help with their personal visa journey.... if every one responded to people directly instead of openly in the thread then no information would be shared with others...

As for your comment about the case I mentioned, hardship has no baring on the law in this case.... the immigration law clearly allows for immidiate relatives of a USC, who were legally admitted into the USA to file for AOS and remain here while it is pending....

Kez

[pushbrk 12,092]

Well, here is a case of my friend, a bit different but worth mentioning here.

My friend's wife entered US from Canada on a visit visa and her visa expired later. 6 months after expiry of visit visa, my friend (who was a PR back then) filed I-130 for her. They initially planned to wait till the case becomes current and then his wife would go back to Canada and get the rest of the things done there. In 2007, my friend became US citizen and his petition got approved. His wife never left US since then and they talked to a lawyer to see if they can file for I485 so his wife does not have to leave US. Lawyer filed for I485 and things are in process. Lawyer told my firend that US citizen's spouse or parents or children under 18 are always eligible for 'adjustment of status' as long as they have entered the country on a valid visa and has been inspected, even if the visa has expired later and they lost there status.

Take away = I guess, lkekandi does have an option here...

Rest is left for the experts!!

Actually, it may ultimately be up to a judge, so people should be prepared when they engage in unconventional means, even uninentionally.

Again, rather than arguing, why not simply respond to the OP directly with your take on the situation and any advice?

The whole idea of VJ is that we can discuss all the options available to people who are looking for help with their personal visa journey.... if every one responded to people directly instead of openly in the thread then no information would be shared with others...

As for your comment about the case I mentioned, hardship has no baring on the law in this case.... the immigration law clearly allows for immidiate relatives of a USC, who were legally admitted into the USA to file for AOS and remain here while it is pending....

Kez

So then let me ask you directly. How would you have responded to the OP, if you were first to respond.

I totally agree that the bolded above is correct. My comments go to the end result, not ability to file and remain. Can you think of any examples where a legally admitted spouse would have an undesireable result after filing AOS? Would you advise a USC's spouse to enter on the VWP or visitor visa, then file for AOS instead of bothering with a spouse visa?

If you have different advice for the OP, please give it instead of challenging my responses. If all you want to do, is debate the difference between maybe and probably not or maybe not and probably, please give it a rest.

[Minya's wife 24]

As for your comment about the case I mentioned, hardship has no baring on the law in this case.... the immigration law clearly allows for immidiate relatives of a USC, who were legally admitted into the USA to file for AOS and remain here while it is pending....

Kez

If immigration laws clearly allow this procedure, why aren't more people doing this....say those who are more "free" to enter the US, like those from the VWP countries....why wait "forever" for the IR/CR-1 and the K-3 visas...if they could just come to the US for a visit, and file AOS? I'm just truly confused.

Just a curiosity, do you know what was the outcome of the case you stated? Was AOS approved w/out worries?

-P

[TracyTN 237]

nm.

But I sure am sick of this 'I have to be right all the time' #######.

Edited January 16, 2008 by TracyTN

[Marilyn. 340]

As for your comment about the case I mentioned, hardship has no baring on the law in this case.... the immigration law clearly allows for immidiate relatives of a USC, who were legally admitted into the USA to file for AOS and remain here while it is pending....

Kez

If immigration laws clearly allow this procedure, why aren't more people doing this....say those who are more "free" to enter the US, like those from the VWP countries....why wait "forever" for the IR/CR-1 and the K-3 visas...if they could just come to the US for a visit, and file AOS? I'm just truly confused.

Just a curiosity, do you know what was the outcome of the case you stated? Was AOS approved w/out worries?

-P

I was wondering about this too...

I know people can adjust from a tourist visa if they had no intention of immigrating when they first came over but I would think marriage would be a big intent to immigrate...

Edited January 16, 2008 by MarilynP

[Minya's wife 24]

As for your comment about the case I mentioned, hardship has no baring on the law in this case.... the immigration law clearly allows for immidiate relatives of a USC, who were legally admitted into the USA to file for AOS and remain here while it is pending....

Kez

If immigration laws clearly allow this procedure, why aren't more people doing this....say those who are more "free" to enter the US, like those from the VWP countries....why wait "forever" for the IR/CR-1 and the K-3 visas...if they could just come to the US for a visit, and file AOS? I'm just truly confused.

Just a curiosity, do you know what was the outcome of the case you stated? Was AOS approved w/out worries?

-P

I was wondering about this too...

I know people can adjust from a tourist visa if they had no intention of immigrating when they first came over but I would think marriage would be a big intent to immigrate...

Not only the marriage, but the actual filed and pending I-130(+the I-129F as the case may be) petition(s). So...I don't know what the legal explanation is.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

As for your comment about the case I mentioned, hardship has no baring on the law in this case.... the immigration law clearly allows for immidiate relatives of a USC, who were legally admitted into the USA to file for AOS and remain here while it is pending....

Kez

If immigration laws clearly allow this procedure, why aren't more people doing this....say those who are more "free" to enter the US, like those from the VWP countries....why wait "forever" for the IR/CR-1 and the K-3 visas...if they could just come to the US for a visit, and file AOS? I'm just truly confused.

Just a curiosity, do you know what was the outcome of the case you stated? Was AOS approved w/out worries?

-P

I was wondering about this too...

I know people can adjust from a tourist visa if they had no intention of immigrating when they first came over but I would think marriage would be a big intent to immigrate...

Not only the marriage, but the actual filed and pending I-130(+the I-129F as the case may be) petition(s). So...I don't know what the legal explanation is.

This situation would work:

Husband files for I-130 for his new wife, I-130 is being processed, wife wants to visit husband for 3 weeks vacation, wife arrives on VWP, she shows POE staff her I-130 NOA1 and explains she is waiting for interview to get a immigrants visa, but is visiting her husband so they can look at houses together.... they allow her entry to the US, she is allowed to be in the US for 90 days.... they have a wonderful vacation together and find a house they like and begin the process of buying the house, wife's 90 days are almost gone, they begin the wish I did not have to return, wish I could just stay, they start to wonder if their is anyway they could just stay... next day they go to the local USCIS office for advice. USCIS officer asks them if they planned to get around the visa process and they tell him/her no they had intended for wife to return to her own country but they now wish to be together and would like to know if it is possible.... USCIS offer tells them as long as they did not have intent to enter the US and file for AOS and remain then they can file the paperwork and wife can remain in the US past her 90 days waiting for the AOS interview....

Husband and wife are delighted and set off home with all the forms given to them at USCIS office.... some days later they have lots of questions about the forms and doing it this way because they have read posts on a immigration forum that it might be visa fraud and wife could get deported.... so they make an appointment to go and see a immigration lawyer....

Immigration lawyer listens to their story and what they have found out for themselves... he confirms with them that they did not have intent to get around the immigration laws when wife entered the US... and confirms that yes they can infact file for AOS and remain here in the US while it is pending.... he advises them that they should keep any evidence they have of wife's intent to return to her home country at the end of her vacation as they could be asked about it at their AOS interview....

That is how it can and does work out for some people.....

The fact is at the time of entry what is your intent at that time.... not what you might intend to do later on or once a immigrant visa is approved.... it is your intent for that visit.... and that visit alone...

Kez

[rebeccajo 14]

Again, rather than arguing, why not simply respond to the OP directly with your take on the situation and any advice?

Why not simply respond to the OP directly without the take?

[pushbrk 12,092]

Again, rather than arguing, why not simply respond to the OP directly with your take on the situation and any advice?

Why not simply respond to the OP directly without the take?

Good question. The answer is that my intention is to provide real help to the posters that need it. This poster's concern, "I dont want us getting into trouble for having 2 I-130's on the system." gave me the impression their problem was more complicated than simply having two I-130's in the system. My impression is that their actions may well be considered visa fraud by the USCIS, so it is critical that they see an attorney ASAP for advice going forward.

Frankly, advice that indicates it's ok for members from VWP countries or who have visitor visas in hand can disregard the appropriate spouse visa process, enter the US and adjust status is irresponsible in the first degree. I'm not saying you or anybody else is doing that, but arguing that it might work, while technically true, could dangerously mislead any reader.

If your recommendation to see an attorney is completely generic and has nothing to do with the case at hand, then I see no purpose in discussing, again, whether what might well happen may not happen. The one assertion necessarily allows for both to be true. Anything that might happen, by definition, might not.

Edited January 16, 2008 by pushbrk

[rebeccajo 14]

Again, rather than arguing, why not simply respond to the OP directly with your take on the situation and any advice?

Why not simply respond to the OP directly without the take?

Good question. The answer is that my intention is to provide real help to the posters that need it. This poster's concern, "I dont want us getting into trouble for having 2 I-130's on the system." gave me the impression their problem was more complicated than simply having two I-130's in the system. My impression is that their actions may well be considered visa fraud by the USCIS so it is critical that they see an attorney ASAP for advice going forward.

Frankly, advice that indicates it's ok for members from VWP countries or who have visitor visas in hand can disregard the appropriate spouse visa process, enter the US and adjust status is irresponsible in the first degree. I'm not saying you or anybody else is doing that, but arguing that it might work, while technically true, could dangerously mislead any reader.

See where I just italicized your post?

If you feel compelled to use the word 'fraud', then the answer you just wrote re: USCIS impression would be taken in much more constructive manner than your original post - which was - 'looks like a clear case of visa fraud to me'.

None of us knows the entire story of a member. Any judgment call about fraud; about intent; or about legitimaticy at entry is not only irrelevant to the discussion but its also not constructive.

It is not necessary to add 'drama' to the answer by scaring the bejesus out of people. Telling someone they acted fraudulently can have just as serious a consequence as telling them they have not. If the language of the community is 'strong enough' to convince them one way or the other, they may decide to skip the part about retaining counsel. They may withdraw a petition and return home without necessity. Or they may file for a petition that could be denied.

None of us in this thread has a law degree. None of us practice law in the field of family based immigration. We are 'experts' in what we read and the compiled knowledge of anecdotal experience ONLY. We don't know case law and we don't fully understand the code. We need to remember that.

Don't take the 'responsibility' of a readers case so seriously that you feel compelled to pass a judgment upon it in order to get them to act. At the end of the day it is their case and their responsibility. Making judgments based upon 'feelings' or 'opinions' it an overreach of what we do here.

Edited January 16, 2008 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 12,092]

Again, rather than arguing, why not simply respond to the OP directly with your take on the situation and any advice?

Why not simply respond to the OP directly without the take?

Good question. The answer is that my intention is to provide real help to the posters that need it. This poster's concern, "I dont want us getting into trouble for having 2 I-130's on the system." gave me the impression their problem was more complicated than simply having two I-130's in the system. My impression is that their actions may well be considered visa fraud by the USCIS so it is critical that they see an attorney ASAP for advice going forward.

Frankly, advice that indicates it's ok for members from VWP countries or who have visitor visas in hand can disregard the appropriate spouse visa process, enter the US and adjust status is irresponsible in the first degree. I'm not saying you or anybody else is doing that, but arguing that it might work, while technically true, could dangerously mislead any reader.

See where I just italicized your post?

If you feel compelled to use the word 'fraud', then the answer you just wrote re: USCIS impression would be taken in much more constructive manner than your original post - which was - 'looks like a clear case of visa fraud to me'.

None of us knows the entire story of a member. Any judgment call about fraud; about intent; or about legitimaticy at entry is not only irrelevant to the discussion but its also not constructive.

It is not necessary to add 'drama' to the answer by scaring the bejesus out of people. Telling someone they acted fraudulently can have just as serious a consequence as telling them they have not. If the language of the community is 'strong enough' to convince them one way or the other, they may decide to skip the part about retaining counsel. They may withdraw a petition and return home without necessity. Or they may file for a petition that could be denied.

None of us in this thread has a law degree. None of us practice law in the field of family based immigration. We are 'experts' in what we read and the compiled knowledge of anecdotal experience ONLY. We don't know case law and we don't fully understand the code. We need to remember that.

Don't take the 'responsibility' of a readers case so seriously that you feel compelled to pass a judgment upon it in order to get them to act. At the end of the day it is their case and their responsibility. Making judgments based upon 'feelings' or 'opinions' it an overreach of what we do here.

Clearly your perticipation is about me, rather than about the issue.

If your username were CaptainEwok the above counsel would be appropriate. Since it is not. Stop humping my cyberleg.

[rebeccajo 14]

Again, rather than arguing, why not simply respond to the OP directly with your take on the situation and any advice?

Why not simply respond to the OP directly without the take?

Good question. The answer is that my intention is to provide real help to the posters that need it. This poster's concern, "I dont want us getting into trouble for having 2 I-130's on the system." gave me the impression their problem was more complicated than simply having two I-130's in the system. My impression is that their actions may well be considered visa fraud by the USCIS so it is critical that they see an attorney ASAP for advice going forward.

Frankly, advice that indicates it's ok for members from VWP countries or who have visitor visas in hand can disregard the appropriate spouse visa process, enter the US and adjust status is irresponsible in the first degree. I'm not saying you or anybody else is doing that, but arguing that it might work, while technically true, could dangerously mislead any reader.

See where I just italicized your post?

If you feel compelled to use the word 'fraud', then the answer you just wrote re: USCIS impression would be taken in much more constructive manner than your original post - which was - 'looks like a clear case of visa fraud to me'.

None of us knows the entire story of a member. Any judgment call about fraud; about intent; or about legitimaticy at entry is not only irrelevant to the discussion but its also not constructive.

It is not necessary to add 'drama' to the answer by scaring the bejesus out of people. Telling someone they acted fraudulently can have just as serious a consequence as telling them they have not. If the language of the community is 'strong enough' to convince them one way or the other, they may decide to skip the part about retaining counsel. They may withdraw a petition and return home without necessity. Or they may file for a petition that could be denied.

None of us in this thread has a law degree. None of us practice law in the field of family based immigration. We are 'experts' in what we read and the compiled knowledge of anecdotal experience ONLY. We don't know case law and we don't fully understand the code. We need to remember that.

Don't take the 'responsibility' of a readers case so seriously that you feel compelled to pass a judgment upon it in order to get them to act. At the end of the day it is their case and their responsibility. Making judgments based upon 'feelings' or 'opinions' it an overreach of what we do here.

Clearly your perticipation is about me, rather than about the issue.

If your username were CaptainEwok the above counsel would be appropriate. Since it is not. Stop humping my cyberleg.

You're disgusting.

[LaL 418]

I am going to close this thread for review. Perhaps to be reopened.

[William33 110]

This thread has digressed from helpful advice to the OP and is no longer productive. It is now closed.