Change of Status from B2 (California)

[Mishooo 0]

Oh boy... you lied... There is no such thing as "confidential by law." Please.

actually there is. i should know because i was in fact married that way. in california, a confidential marriage is one that requires no witnesses to sign the license (the religious leader or justice doesn't count as a witness). furthermore, only the couple has access to the marriage record, and the record can only be obtained in the county in which it was registered. for further verification, one needs only consult this link: http://www.ccr.saccounty.net/MarriageLicencesAndCeremonies.asp#D2

as sacramento is the capitol of california, it is safe for one to assume that this is representative of the state as a whole.

[ceadsearc 515]

It doesn't mean you aren't married, though, or that it is confidential from the government. You lied when you entered. Maybe not willfully, but you lied about a material fact. I would go home and file for the CR-1 if I were you. If you don't try to adjust here there is no issue of material misrepresentation. If you do ... Well, cross your fingers they didn't record your answer.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

actually there is. i should know because i was in fact married that way. in california, a confidential marriage is one that requires no witnesses to sign the license (the religious leader or justice doesn't count as a witness). furthermore, only the couple has access to the marriage record, and the record can only be obtained in the county in which it was registered. for further verification, one needs only consult this link: http://www.ccr.saccounty.net/MarriageLicencesAndCeremonies.asp#D2

as sacramento is the capitol of california, it is safe for one to assume that this is representative of the state as a whole.

Did you read the rest of the thread? A confidential marriage certificate does NOT mean you are not married. You lied and because of that lie, may be banned from the US for life.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Harpa Timsah

[ValerieA 350]

It doesn't mean you aren't married, though, or that it is confidential from the government. You lied when you entered. Maybe not willfully, but you lied about a material fact. I would go home and file for the CR-1 if I were you. If you don't try to adjust here there is no issue of material misrepresentation. If you do ... Well, cross your fingers they didn't record your answer.

I do believe there is still misrepresentation. However, the big question is - was the answer recorded? Frankly, the OP's questions have been answered, we have brought up red flags in his case, and I don't think there is a lot more we can help him with.

Meanwhile (and ceadsearc, I am not including you on this) there have been some judgmental responses in this thread. We are not here to judge, we are here to give advice and help people at whichever stage of their journey they are on. Comments to the effect of "You liar! You tried to game the system! People like you make me so mad!" are not helpful or germane to the thread. They are opinions ONLY.

[islandgal 74]

You should have told the truth, which is, "I am married, but I didn't update my passport yet."

Yup.

[ceadsearc 515]

I do believe there is still misrepresentation. However, the big question is - was the answer recorded? Frankly, the OP's questions have been answered, we have brought up red flags in his case, and I don't think there is a lot more we can help him with.

Meanwhile (and ceadsearc, I am not including you on this) there have been some judgmental responses in this thread. We are not here to judge, we are here to give advice and help people at whichever stage of their journey they are on. Comments to the effect of "You liar! You tried to game the system! People like you make me so mad!" are not helpful or germane to the thread. They are opinions ONLY.

I agree with your points. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is any way the OP can find out if the answers were recorded and as such in my opinion it is safer to assume they were rather than risk a material misrepresentation ban.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1341363162[/url]' post='5502548']

But you can't lie about whether the settlement exists just because it was deemed confidential. Confidential marriage is special to California, and it merely allows celebrities to get a license without having their personal details made public. It doesn't keep the fact that the marriage happened confidential.

I agree with you on that one, however, if you're not all too familiar with California law it is not far fetched to presume that a confidential marriage is one that needs not be disclosed to anyone. I am not disputing the facts so much as I am pondering what the intentions behind the act were.

Bottomline is that it would be presumptuous for anyone to pass judgment without full knowledge of the intentions of the poster. In a court of law, including for immigrations proceedings, intention is taken into consideration.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1341368313[/url]' post='5502666']

actually there is. i should know because i was in fact married that way. in california, a confidential marriage is one that requires no witnesses to sign the license (the religious leader or justice doesn't count as a witness). furthermore, only the couple has access to the marriage record, and the record can only be obtained in the county in which it was registered. for further verification, one needs only consult this link: http://www.ccr.sacco...remonies.asp#D2

as sacramento is the capitol of california, it is safe for one to assume that this is representative of the state as a whole.

IMHO you should explain that to an immigration officer if this is ever mentioned in an interview. The fact you lied to the officer at the POE remains and it may come into play but also the fact that your lie may have been unintentional also counts.

In the end, whether a ban would apply in your case is up to the discretion of the immigration officers, so no other person can make that call here and most certainly no one here is in a position to try you for that. Consider speaking to a lawyer and being thorough and truthful in your account of the events.

I wish you the best of luck in your new life and country with your new family!

Edited July 4, 2012 by Gegel

[Mrs Green 6]

No one knows the state of mind of the poster and therefore we should be careful of the responses given. Even if the response was recorded by the IO, isn't it the poster word against his? What if there was a misunderstanding or error and an immigration officer made a mistake on his record, would that be a ban for misrepresentation?

I wish you all the best on your journey, and would advise that you consult an attorney and continue your process with a positive mind.

[ceadsearc 515]

No one knows the state of mind of the poster and therefore we should be careful of the responses given. Even if the response was recorded by the IO, isn't it the poster word against his? What if there was a misunderstanding or error and an immigration officer made a mistake on his record, would that be a ban for misrepresentation?

I wish you all the best on your journey, and would advise that you consult an attorney and continue your process with a positive mind.

If it is applicant's word against CBP officer's word, it's safe to assume that CBP's version of the story is going to be taken as the truth. It's a big risk to hope it wasn't recorded or hope you can convince someone it was a mix up when you are looking at a lifetime ban with no waiver & there is a safer, legal path to take.