Brazilian fiancé out of status

[-B&T- 1]

I find it strange that two people never met and yet want to get married, but that's none of my business.

Yet, here's a viable option: if they are both so madly in love that they want to get married and live together, and the Brazilian gentleman is a foreigner without legal status in the US anyway, why doesn't he move to the Philippines and they both live there happily ever after?

That is the thing called LOL (Love Online) . He wants to travel to Philippines and spend time with her but unfortunately with his immigration status it seem impossible As for him moving to PI for good I don't know, I think that is a pretty big decision to make and there's a lot of stuff to consider and his family and work is here it might be hard for him to survive there and for him to get a job will be difficult. Thanks.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...000b92ca60aRCRD[/url]

Brazilian dude needs to consult with an immigration attorney regarding his legal status in the USA.

The CCA took effect February 27, 2001. Anyone who was older than 18 years on February 27, 2001, is covered by prior law. The Brazilian was 21 years old in 2001.

Agreed, but he still may be a citizen and needs to consult with an immigration attorney. From the USCIS website:

"A person who was over the age of 18 on February 27, 2001, may, however, be a citizen under the law in effect prior to the enactment of the CCA. If you believe this may apply to you, please see the "Contact Us" link to the right to call our National Customer Service Center"

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...000b92ca60aRCRD

Thank you so much. I will tell them about those links you've given.

[Rings 10]

I find it strange that two people never met and yet want to get married, but that's none of my business.

Yet, here's a viable option: if they are both so madly in love that they want to get married and live together, and the Brazilian gentleman is a foreigner without legal status in the US anyway, why doesn't he move to the Philippines and they both live there happily ever after?

Never met my husband before I married him... We have lived together 2 years now lol... judgement is not necessary really.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Hi all,

I'm posting this for my friend Rowena. She met a Brazilian guy online about 2 years ago and they fell in love with each other and want to start the K1 process which requires him to meet Rowena personally but the problem is he is afraid of traveling outside US because he is out of status and might not be able to return here in US or worse, get deported back to Brazil and his entire family is in the United States. He came here legally when he was 13 years old petitioned by his USC parents but the parents 'forgot' to adjust his Status and now he is already 29 years old. He files taxes ever year that's what Rowena told me (I don't know how he's able to do it being an overstayed alien) I feel sad for them and wants to help them that's why I'm posting this cuz I know I could gather some advices from you and from those people who used to be in same situation before. Is it possible for him to adjust his status on his own? If yes, what Forms that he needs to submit? If he will hire a lawyer is it going to work and how long is the process?

Thank you so much guys in advance for any help.

So, if I understand correctly, Rowena is not in the USA, is not a USC or LPR, and has never met Brazilian dude face to face?

I think Brazilian dude needs to figure out his immigration issues before he even considers starting a relationship.

You said his "USC Parents" failed to submit his paperwork for AOS. More info is needed. Was he adopted by USC parents? Did he come on a family based petition? Did his parents become USC before or after his 18th birthday? If his parents became USC before his 18th birthday, then he is most likely a USC (whether he knows it or not).

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...000b92ca60aRCRD

Brazilian dude needs to consult with an immigration attorney regarding his legal status in the USA.

The CCA took effect February 27, 2001. Anyone who was older than 18 years on February 27, 2001, is covered by prior law. The Brazilian was 21 years old in 2001.

Agreed, but he still may be a citizen and needs to consult with an immigration attorney. From the USCIS website:

"A person who was over the age of 18 on February 27, 2001, may, however, be a citizen under the law in effect prior to the enactment of the CCA. If you believe this may apply to you, please see the “Contact Us” link to the right to call our National Customer Service Center"

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...000b92ca60aRCRD

Under both prior and current law the child would automatically derive citizenship once all of the qualifications were met. Under both prior law (the now defunct section 321 of the INA) and current law (the revised section 320 of the INA), one of the requisite qualifications is that the child had legal permanent resident status. The biggest difference between prior and current law is that prior law required both parents to be US citizens, unless one parent was dead, the parents were divorced and the child was in custody of the US citizen parent, or the child was born out of wedlock and was in custody of the US citizen mother. The revised law only requires one parent to be a US citizen, even if both parents are still married. The new law allows a US citizen with an LPR spouse to adopt a child from abroad, and the child will acquire citizenship automatically upon being granted LPR status, which was one of the primary goals of the law.

The Brazilian boyfriend never adjusted status, so he never qualified.

[Gemmie 142]

His K1 petition will automatically be denied as he needs to supply evidence of US citizenship (such as a birth or naturalization certificate) with the I-129F. It will also be denied if they can't supply evidence that they've met in the past 2 years.

I would consult a good lawyer, or look into moving to the PI - it might be hard for him to set up there as his job and family are here, but that's the unfortunate consequence of being in the US illegally and wanting an international partner to immigrate here.

[morocco4ever 63]

I find it strange that two people never met and yet want to get married, but that's none of my business.

True, it isn't. Whether or not you believe it can happen is beside the point. Going on my 5 year anniversary this month, and that is exactly how it happened to us.

Yet, here's a viable option: if they are both so madly in love that they want to get married and live together, and the Brazilian gentleman is a foreigner without legal status in the US anyway, why doesn't he move to the Philippines and they both live there happily ever after? He was brought here as a child, and his parents didn't follow through. This is the only life he knows, and it is truly unfortunate that this has happened to him. Are you always this compassionate?

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Rings & Morrocco4Horses,

If both of you married your husband before having even met him in person, you are part of a very small group of people who took a overproportionally high risk in regard to relationship and marriage. It is by no means the norm in any civilized country and the equivalent of walking into a casino and putting all of your chips on red or black. If it worked out for you, so far, congratulations!

There might be such a thing as love at first sight, although it certainly is hard to find, but love at no sight is a totally different gamble. In most cases where a couple gets married before having met in person, it's a marriage arranged by the parents, often accompanied by circumcision of the bride. Nothing to brag about.

However, I suggested his potential move to the Philippines for two reasons:

1) Yes, by my own admission I am a bit suspicious by someone from a poor country wanting to marry a USC or LPR without having ever met in person. To put these suspicions to rest, it makes sense for him to at least suggest to Rewena his willingness to move to the Philippines. If she seriously considers it, he can be sure her affection his real. If she tells him he's a loser and to go to hell for wasting her time and to never contact her again, he also knows what this was all about.

2) Since the Brazilian gentleman is a foreigner without a legal leg to stand on in the US, awaiting either a potential amnesty or deportation, accompanied by a 10-year ban, whatever comes first, his only option to be with the love of his life might be either the Philippines or perhaps Brazil. So if she is willing to leave her life and her friends behind, why should the very same apply to him?

So in that regard I am a compassionate person, although a bit more cautions than those who marry someone without ever having met them in person or send their life savings to someone in Nigeria who promises millions in return. Call me old fashioned, and I won't argue it, but I'm also straight forward without beating behind the bush, and, hopefully, polite enough when posting.

[morocco4ever 63]

Rings & Morrocco4Horses,

If both of you married your husband before having even met him in person, you are part of a very small group of people who took a overproportionally high risk in regard to relationship and marriage. It is by no means the norm in any civilized country and the equivalent of walking into a casino and putting all of your chips on red or black. If it worked out for you, so far, congratulations!

There might be such a thing as love at first sight, although it certainly is hard to find, but love at no sight is a totally different gamble. In most cases where a couple gets married before having met in person, it's a marriage arranged by the parents, often accompanied by circumcision of the bride. Nothing to brag about.

However, I suggested his potential move to the Philippines for two reasons:

1) Yes, by my own admission I am a bit suspicious by someone from a poor country wanting to marry a USC or LPR without having ever met in person. To put these suspicions to rest, it makes sense for him to at least suggest to Rewena his willingness to move to the Philippines. If she seriously considers it, he can be sure her affection his real. If she tells him he's a loser and to go to hell for wasting her time and to never contact her again, he also knows what this was all about.

2) Since the Brazilian gentleman is a foreigner without a legal leg to stand on in the US, awaiting either a potential amnesty or deportation, accompanied by a 10-year ban, whatever comes first, his only option to be with the love of his life might be either the Philippines or perhaps Brazil. So if she is willing to leave her life and her friends behind, why should the very same apply to him?

So in that regard I am a compassionate person, although a bit more cautions than those who marry someone without ever having met them in person or send their life savings to someone in Nigeria who promises millions in return. Call me old fashioned, and I won't argue it, but I'm also straight forward without beating behind the bush, and, hopefully, polite enough when posting.

Morocco4Horses?

But with the technology today, what makes you think I never saw him? We spoke daily for a year with a webcam and headset. You see I was able to get to know him better this way because there was nothing to do but talk to each other. When I did fly out to meet him he was exactly the person face to face that he was online. The problem doesn't stem from meeting someone online when these relationships don't work it. It stems from people that don't want to see the person for who they are. You know, the ones that wear blinders. That mistake can happen face to face as well as it can online.

I do find it odd that you are suspicious by what the OP has posted. If they met online, and she knows now that he is illegal here in the US, why hasn't she already blown him off? That was how I looked at it.

As for his options, I can see he doesn't have many here. I don't know if the USCIS would allow him to stay. I find it sad if they don't have allowances for children brought here either illegally, or didn't complete the process for one reason or the other. Yes, he should have handled it when he was 18, but when I was 18 I would never had realized how big of a deal it was.

I don't have anything against someone who doesn't beat around the bush. You haven't seen many of my posts. But I could see your suspicions behind your words. That is more what I thought was unfair. Sorry though if I misjudged you.

[Rings 10]

Rings & Morrocco4Horses,

If both of you married your husband before having even met him in person, you are part of a very small group of people who took a overproportionally high risk in regard to relationship and marriage. It is by no means the norm in any civilized country and the equivalent of walking into a casino and putting all of your chips on red or black. If it worked out for you, so far, congratulations!

There might be such a thing as love at first sight, although it certainly is hard to find, but love at no sight is a totally different gamble. In most cases where a couple gets married before having met in person, it's a marriage arranged by the parents, often accompanied by circumcision of the bride. Nothing to brag about.

However, I suggested his potential move to the Philippines for two reasons:

1) Yes, by my own admission I am a bit suspicious by someone from a poor country wanting to marry a USC or LPR without having ever met in person. To put these suspicions to rest, it makes sense for him to at least suggest to Rewena his willingness to move to the Philippines. If she seriously considers it, he can be sure her affection his real. If she tells him he's a loser and to go to hell for wasting her time and to never contact her again, he also knows what this was all about.

2) Since the Brazilian gentleman is a foreigner without a legal leg to stand on in the US, awaiting either a potential amnesty or deportation, accompanied by a 10-year ban, whatever comes first, his only option to be with the love of his life might be either the Philippines or perhaps Brazil. So if she is willing to leave her life and her friends behind, why should the very same apply to him?

So in that regard I am a compassionate person, although a bit more cautions than those who marry someone without ever having met them in person or send their life savings to someone in Nigeria who promises millions in return. Call me old fashioned, and I won't argue it, but I'm also straight forward without beating behind the bush, and, hopefully, polite enough when posting.

Honestly my post really meant to explain that it was not fair to assume that two people that may never have met in person before simply dont know each other. I met Loke in 2004 and we talked as friends for years online with webcams and microphones. I didn't touch his skin till 2007 and when I did I married him that same trip (I had to before some Aussie woman snatched him from me lol) I don't feel like I was gambling anything any woman in love wouldn't gamble.

If you think about it, it's not really too far fetched. I mean you can date someone for a year and go to dinner and a movie, get engaged and married and never know who they really are... (trust me I was married for ten years before I met Loke) How much do you really talk at dinner and a movie with a date every Friday night?

I was in no way implying that you were not compassionate, but merely stating that judgement based on how much they know each other was not valid nor was it fair. I don't think that judging another person and their country is "helping" when help is what they are here for. It's not our place to make them out to be less than legitimate simply because that's not how I would like people to treat me.

Mutal respect was merely what it was about. I know your comment was subtle, but it did not go unnoticed and it's offensive to couples who really are legitimate like me and the love of my life who I stole from Aussie chicks and they can never have him back ever!

Edited October 7, 2009 by Rings

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Rings, Morrocco4ever,

it's not about you guys. It's about the gentleman from Brazil. Since you guys did the online thing and are happily married, it all worked out fine for you and that's absolutely great. Really. Still you will have to admit that marrying somebody you NEVER met, not even once, is way out of the "norm" and quite risky.

Anyway, Rewena initially assumed that her fiancee is a USC or at least a LPR. Until a few days ago "we" weren't even sure whether or not he automatically received citizenship from his USC parents. I honestly don't know if her "love" to the gentleman is real or if it's, at least underlying, fueled by the desire to move to the US. Nobody knows but Rewena. That's why I feel that "testing" is a valid and viable thing to do. I would do it if I were walking in the gent's shoes, you can bet the farm on it!

As for immigration reform, I am all for it on so many levels. I'm personally exposed to young workers who brought to the US from Mexico when they were young children, yet barely speak Spanish and never have been back to Mexico since. They had nothing to do with their parents' actions, yet they are being punished for it and many of them have no way to become legal. They cannot return to their home country, 'cause the US is all they know! That's just plain wrong.

And since we went this far, let me take it one step further. I believe the whole family-based immigration system is flawed. What good does it do the US, to us, THE PEOPLE who live here, if a foreigner marries a USC, then brings, brothers, sisters, nephews, uncles and aunts here, no matter how much of a deadbeat they may be? There are millions of hard working people in the World, who want to immigrate to the US. They have skills, education, money saved, are willing to work hard for a better life, yet they have zero chance. "Check back in 16 years, okay!"

Yet if they marry a USC, they immediately jump in front of the line and get immediately in. That's not right and if I had any say in this, I'd change it in a heartbeat.

What the US (and any country, really) needs is "good" people. People who push the country forward, people who are willing to achieve things. People with skills, goals, preferably money to spend on the US economy, so why not opening the door to those people, allowing them to immigrate if they can prove they have enough cash to settle in and won't ever need a dime from the government. And if any of the immigrants commits a crime, send 'em back to where they came from.

But hey, that's probably just me.

[Rings 10]

Bob,

I am in no way trying to be immoral to your words or your beliefs and you have a valid point in what you say and I am not disregarding that in any form nor have I in any of my posts.

I merely said that the particular comment was disrespectful because it was. I am not standing against everything you have put verbally fourth here in these posts and I find many of your opinions to be valid.

I am also a person that does not "beat around the bush" and I am in no way implying that there are not flaws in the legal system or the immigration system as a whole. I simply stated that the comment wasn't just.. that was all. With all due respect, please recognize that and see it for what it was.

I understand your thoughts and feelings behind it and nevertheless your reasons to publish it publically are your own. For me to stand back and say it wasn't an offensive remark would be against my own "not beating around the bush" feelings and I stated them here as well.

You can go on and on about why you said what you said, but quite frankly it does not validate offending other members of this forum. That's my personal opinion, but hey... that's probably just me.

[morocco4ever 63]

Just Bob, I think you are missing our point. This IS about the other couple. When you say that it is risky to marry someone you first met, it has nothing to do with an internet relationship. Each person in ANY relationship is responsible to get to know each other before they choose to marry. This can very easily be done via internet if they spend the time online productively and spend the time learning each others values and goals in life. Sure one person could be lying, but they could do that in person as well. So just because you view it as risky doesn't make it so. It merely reflects your opinion.

As for your suspicions. There is not one thing the OP has stated that suggests fraud. It is apparent that you are going to believe that all relationships that begin between a resident of the US with one of a 3rd world country is based on fraud. Again, this is based on your opinion only, and as ring has also said, this is something that was uncalled for.

As for the immigration policy, I agree that it needs changes, but why discuss that on this thread?

I don't know you, and I haven't read any of your posts before. So I am curious, are you this suspicious of virtually everyone's relationships on Visa Journey? You say that you don't know if this couples relationship is valid. Well we don't really know if yours is either. So why go some where that you have no place going?

[Tahoma 2,291]

If both of you married your husband before having even met him in person, you are part of a very small group of people who took a overproportionally high risk in regard to relationship and marriage. It is by no means the norm in any civilized country and the equivalent of walking into a casino and putting all of your chips on red or black.

Do you have anything at all to back up your statements, or are you simply blowing smoke? Depending upon the source, between 41% and 50% of all first marriages in the U.S. end in divorce. Between 60% and 67% of all second marriages in the U.S. end in divorce. Between 73% and 74% of all third marriages end in divorce. Is this what you mean by a "civilized country?"

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

Perhaps the term "civilized country" was a poor choice of words on my part.

What I meant with it is countries that have evolved to a status quo that doesn't involve arranged marriages, marriages where daughters in their infant age are promised to another family's son, Muslim countries where men can be legally poligamists, and countries that do not allow 10 to 12 year old girls to be married. I'm sure there's a better term for that, but I can't think of one right now.

BECAUSE people jump into marriages without getting to know their partner first, we have such a high divorce rate. That is EXACTLY the point I've been making here. Internet chat isn't a substitute for a year of courting, another year of living together, and a third year of being engaged, before getting married. You may think otherwise, but I don't.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Perhaps the term "civilized country" was a poor choice of words on my part.

What I meant with it is countries that have evolved to a status quo that doesn't involve arranged marriages, marriages where daughters in their infant age are promised to another family's son, Muslim countries where men can be legally poligamists, and countries that do not allow 10 to 12 year old girls to be married. I'm sure there's a better term for that, but I can't think of one right now.

BECAUSE people jump into marriages without getting to know their partner first, we have such a high divorce rate. That is EXACTLY the point I've been making here. Internet chat isn't a substitute for a year of courting, another year of living together, and a third year of being engaged, before getting married. You may think otherwise, but I don't.

Nobody chooses internet chat as a substitute for courting. Some people simply have no choice. Their fiancee might live in a country where it's virtually impossible to get a visa to visit the US. A US citizen might not be able to walk away from his/her life for a year to shack up with their fiancee in their home country. They'd lose their job, their home, and nobody would be there to support their dependents. For many people, courtship is something you have to fit into your life as best as you can rather than planning your life around your courtship, especially if they are old enough to have responsibilities.

You're very fortunate if you were able to do all of those things before getting married. Most of us are not that lucky.

[Rings 10]

Perhaps the term "civilized country" was a poor choice of words on my part.

What I meant with it is countries that have evolved to a status quo that doesn't involve arranged marriages, marriages where daughters in their infant age are promised to another family's son, Muslim countries where men can be legally poligamists, and countries that do not allow 10 to 12 year old girls to be married. I'm sure there's a better term for that, but I can't think of one right now.

BECAUSE people jump into marriages without getting to know their partner first, we have such a high divorce rate. That is EXACTLY the point I've been making here. Internet chat isn't a substitute for a year of courting, another year of living together, and a third year of being engaged, before getting married. You may think otherwise, but I don't.

Nobody chooses internet chat as a substitute for courting. Some people simply have no choice. Their fiancee might live in a country where it's virtually impossible to get a visa to visit the US. A US citizen might not be able to walk away from his/her life for a year to shack up with their fiancee in their home country. They'd lose their job, their home, and nobody would be there to support their dependents. For many people, courtship is something you have to fit into your life as best as you can rather than planning your life around your courtship, especially if they are old enough to have responsibilities.

You're very fortunate if you were able to do all of those things before getting married. Most of us are not that lucky.

Thank you