Marriage/tourist visa

[Dave55 0]

What would happen if my fiance and I got married when she is here in the United states on a tourist visa? Would I need to apply for permanent residency after the marriage or is it better to do it before the marriage?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

What would happen if my fiance and I got married when she is here in the United states on a tourist visa? Would I need to apply for permanent residency after the marriage or is it better to do it before the marriage?

Is she here now?

[Mathilda 19]

What would happen if my fiance and I got married when she is here in the United states on a tourist visa? Would I need to apply for permanent residency after the marriage or is it better to do it before the marriage?

You could, but you have to be able to demonstrate that you changed your mind while she was on a tourist visa; that is, that she did not intend to merry before entering as a tourist. This may be difficult to prove, but not impossible. Be careful because if your case is not convincing, she may be accused of visa fraud and this may have strong repercussions on her ability to reenter the U.S. You may want to consult a lawyer, if you want to try.

Best of luck!

Mathilda

[payxibka 10,044]

What would happen if my fiance and I got married when she is here in the United states on a tourist visa? Would I need to apply for permanent residency after the marriage or is it better to do it before the marriage?

no ability to actually apply for permanent residency before the marriage has occurred...

[Brother Hesekiel 2,235]

The USA does not require a special visa or permission in order to get married.

You two can get married here in the US and afterward your--then--wife would return to her home country. Instead of a K-1 you would apply for a CR-1 visa which is much better, as you would avoid the dreaded AOS (1,070.00) and all. Once approved, your wife would enter the US as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) and would receive her Green Card and SS card in the mail about 2 weeks later.

[rsn 135]

You could, but you have to be able to demonstrate that you changed your mind while she was on a tourist visa; that is, that she did not intend to merry before entering as a tourist. This may be difficult to prove, but not impossible. Be careful because if your case is not convincing, she may be accused of visa fraud and this may have strong repercussions on her ability to reenter the U.S. You may want to consult a lawyer, if you want to try.

Best of luck!

Mathilda

You don't have to demonstrate anything. It is up to USCIS to prove you had intent to immigrate, and even that is not enough to prevent adjusting status. As long as material misrepresentation is not involved, go ahead and marry and then adjust status from within the U.S. This would be the fastest route, obviously. If your intent, before she arrived, was to marry and then adjust status, you should go the CR-1 route.

Edited January 6, 2011 by rsn

[payxibka 10,044]

You don't have to demonstrate anything. It is up to USCIS to prove you had intent to immigrate, and even that is not enough to prevent adjusting status. As long as material misrepresentation is not involved, go ahead and marry and then adjust status from within the U.S. This would be the fastest route, obviously. If your intent, before she arrived, was to marry and then adjust status, you should go the CR-1 route.

actually it is not... intent to immigrate is presumed ..... however you will never see anyone denied based on any theory of "intent to immigrate", should they decide to deny it will be cited as misrepresentation....

[rsn 135]

actually it is not... intent to immigrate is presumed ..... however you will never see anyone denied based on any theory of "intent to immigrate", should they decide to deny it will be cited as misrepresentation....

Original intent to immigrate when adjusting from a B2 is not presumed. when you apply for AOS. you are mixing up AOS with applying for a tourist visa. The rest of your statement is a carbon copy of mine.

Edited January 6, 2011 by rsn

[payxibka 10,044]

Original intent to immigrate when adjusting from a B2 is not presumed. when you apply for AOS. you are mixing up AOS with applying for a tourist visa. The rest of your statement is a carbon copy of mine.

despite what you may think i am not mixed up... immigrant intent at entry is presumed (which is the important defining moment)... it is simply easier (ie... cost effective) for the government to pursue a claim of misrepresentation rather than "immigrant intent"

[rsn 135]

despite what you may think i am not mixed up... immigrant intent at entry is presumed (which is the important defining moment)... it is simply easier (ie... cost effective) for the government to pursue a claim of misrepresentation rather than "immigrant intent"

My claim was that USCIS will never deny an AOS application based on immigrant intent. They will only due so if material misrepresentation is present. This has nothing to do with cost effectiveness. It has everything to do with a clear understanding of the law. I can provide sections of the adjudicator's field manual to back up what I say. If you disagree with what I have already stated, then please specify exactly what is incorrect and back it up with proof.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

I have seen Jim explain this issue well. Calling Jim!

I think assuming immigrant intent is an old rule/law; it sounds like some version of the defunct 30/60/90 day rule. Furthermore, intent is not pursued as a reason to deny based on BIA court cases, not based on effectiveness or cost. I suppose even if intent is presumed, since it is not a reason enough by itself to deny AOS, it doesn't matter who thinks intent is there or not. What matters, as stated, is misrepresentation, and in that case it is the government who must have proof, not the immigrant who must prove their innocence.

[payxibka 10,044]

My claim was that USCIS will never deny an AOS application based on immigrant intent. They will only due so if material misrepresentation is present. This has nothing to do with cost effectiveness. It has everything to do with a clear understanding of the law. I can provide sections of the adjudicator's field manual to back up what I say. If you disagree with what I have already stated, then please specify exactly what is incorrect and back it up with proof.

Why must I back up with proof? the standard for me is different than for you?

FWIW, I don't disagree with the end conclusion... it is just how you get there