marriage on tourist visa

[athena_ny 1]

baleeeeted!

Edited January 18, 2007 by meow mix

[xjennyinstereox 0]

I personally know a couple who is finding out what a mistake that can be. She entered from Canada, saying she was coming to visit a friend and then married short time later. Now they have filed their petition and her visit time is up (to go back over the border without questions and bans and whatever they do up there) and now she is scared. She has not yet been denied...but after contacting an immigration atty, has been informed that she may well find problems. So if you know someone who is thinking about this route, advise them against it.

Ok ok ok, I've got to tell my story, because I see people scaring people every day like this. I entered from Canada as a visitor to visit my boyfriend last summer. I came in May. After being here for 4 months, we got married. We've been together for quite some time, so it's not like it was a rushed thing. I had NO intentions of getting married when I crossed that border, so I didn't do ANYTHING illegal. I still have ties to Canada (open bank account, I had open telephone and internet accounts), I had just moved back home so I had all my stuff in a residence, etc.

You say you know a couple who is finding out what a mistake it can be. Look at my timeline, does it look like it was a mistake for me? I didn't have any problems, and the reason is because I didn't lie, I didn't do anything illegal, and my marriage is real.

If she filed for AOS before her visit time was up, then she's FINE. USIS forgives out of status situations if you're married to a USC. The immigration attorney who informed that they may well find problems probably said that so he could get their hard earned cash. We didn't use a lawyer. We were fine. I wouldn't necessarily advise people to do this, because if I do, then I'm encouraging people to cross the border with intent.. HOWEVER, if you're in the situation like I was, and you were proposed to and didn't know it was going to happen, and you want to say yes, SAY YES!

I know I did, and I can help anyone in this current situation. I'm not a lawyer, but I know what I went through and I can answer any questions.

[athena_ny 1]

Everything I've read on this site and elsewhere indicates that you can be out of status for years before getting married and it'll be forgiven because you've married a USC. I read where it says it on the USCIS website and it makes no indication of having to be in status when filing for AOS or anything. Hmm.

I personally know a couple who is finding out what a mistake that can be. She entered from Canada, saying she was coming to visit a friend and then married short time later. Now they have filed their petition and her visit time is up (to go back over the border without questions and bans and whatever they do up there) and now she is scared. She has not yet been denied...but after contacting an immigration atty, has been informed that she may well find problems. So if you know someone who is thinking about this route, advise them against it.

Ok ok ok, I've got to tell my story, because I see people scaring people every day like this. I entered from Canada as a visitor to visit my boyfriend last summer. I came in May. After being here for 4 months, we got married. We've been together for quite some time, so it's not like it was a rushed thing. I had NO intentions of getting married when I crossed that border, so I didn't do ANYTHING illegal. I still have ties to Canada (open bank account, I had open telephone and internet accounts), I had just moved back home so I had all my stuff in a residence, etc.

You say you know a couple who is finding out what a mistake it can be. Look at my timeline, does it look like it was a mistake for me? I didn't have any problems, and the reason is because I didn't lie, I didn't do anything illegal, and my marriage is real.

If she filed for AOS before her visit time was up, then she's FINE. USIS forgives out of status situations if you're married to a USC. The immigration attorney who informed that they may well find problems probably said that so he could get their hard earned cash. We didn't use a lawyer. We were fine. I wouldn't necessarily advise people to do this, because if I do, then I'm encouraging people to cross the border with intent.. HOWEVER, if you're in the situation like I was, and you were proposed to and didn't know it was going to happen, and you want to say yes, SAY YES!

I know I did, and I can help anyone in this current situation. I'm not a lawyer, but I know what I went through and I can answer any questions.

[am1996 0]

I don't mean to continue to belabor the 30/60 day rule but here is a copy of an old INS case where the rule was applied: http://www.gani.com/immigration/3060day.pdf

Here is a 2002 Britishexpats thread discussing the same rule: http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100004

A brief discussion of the issues can also be found in this May, 2006 article: http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=129&a=1...1fc97b32be830a2

A Wiki discussion on the issue (please pay attention to the last paragraph): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_intent

An April, 2006 ILW teleconference on Adjustment of Status had a discussion of this rule on its agenda: http://www.ilw.com/seminars/march2006_citation2b.pdf

A 2006 edition of the Hammond Law Group's article which advises adjustment applicants to pay close attention to the 30/60 day rule (read "Just For A Visit?" portion of the article): http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/2006bij.pdf

[Kez/JWolf 6]

None of your quotes are from USCIS... the so called 30/60/90 day rule is not applied in most cases by USCIS and we really dont need you spouting law here if a legal opinion is needed by anyone then an immigration lawyer would be the person to talk to not someone who work in the field of law and like to come spout your limited knowledge on VJ, your use of legal jargon and your legal type posts can be very confusing to people who might just think you are a immigration lawyer.... not a good thing to do for you or for VJ....

Kez

Edited January 18, 2007 by Niagaenola

[ChristinaM 0]

AM, if you reread, you will see that the original post I replied to was not quoting you. I was irritated by the attitude of someone who said (and I paraphrase) "you won't find much information on that [AOS from tourist status] here, because we're all doing things the legal way". That statement was what nudged me to participate in this thread in the first place. I never implied that that issue was with you though.

What irritated me about your post was the statement in bold below. Without being a USCIS officer or providing any evidence to support it, I am still waiting to find out how you came to that conclusion.

In other words, although your reasoning above might support certain fairly unusual situations where people get married and are going back and forth on staying here and adjusting status or going back to the home country but eventually decide to AOS, in the vast majority of cases the USCIS is likely to take the position that the alien has violated his/her B2 on the day he/she got married rather than the day the AOS was filed.

I happen to feel that the "30/60/90 day rule" is really not significant to a legitimate tourist adjuster with their ducks in a row. However, that is nothing more than my opinion, based on my personal experience and that of those I know in a similar position.

[am1996 0]

None of your quotes are from USCIS... the so called 30/60/90 day rule is not applied in most cases by USCIS and we really dont need you spouting law here if a legal opinion is needed by anyone then an immigration lawyer would be the person to talk to not someone who work in the field of law and like to come spout your limited knowledge on VJ, your use of legal jargon and your legal type posts can be very confusing to people who might just think you are a immigration lawyer.... not a good thing to do for you or for VJ....

Kez, please wipe the foam off your mouth. Did you even bother to look at any of the links I have posted? They are all to articles/posts written by immigration lawyers who do explain that USCIS often DOES USE the 30/60 day rule. I have also linked a case where the good old INS clearly used the 30/60 day rule.

If you have any evidence to the contrary other than your personal anecdotal experience, then please feel free to post it here. Otherwise, you might want to consider ways to stop embarassing yourself by all these asinine and baseless posts.

[DelcoCouple 1]

[am1996 0]

Oh, Kez, speaking of you referring to me as someone who "work [sic] in the field of law," I am an attorney with one of the largest law firms in the country (500+ lawyers in a number of different states; the largest firm in its home state). Prior to this firm, I was an attorney at an even larger firm (1,000+ lawyers with offices all over the world). As I've also previously posted, I myself am an immigrant and, as such, have been dealing with INS/USCIS for about 13 years now.

Although I am not an immigration lawyer and, as such, strongly encourage readers to verify all information contained in my posts (as well as in all other posts found on internet forums), the applicability of the 30/60 day rule is not a particularly difficult one to research even for a lay person. Once again, people are encouraged to review the links I have provided to posts made and articles written by immigration lawyers who quite clearly state that the USCIS DOES often use the 30/60 day rule and that adherence thereto, at the very least, falls in the "best practices" category.

Can we now stop this adolescent "you suck" contest replete with bad grammar and horrendous run-ons?

Edited January 18, 2007 by am1996

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Firstly I do not have any foam at my mouth and secondly please do not judge people by their grammer.... you may well be a very well educated person, but it would appear that you have forgoten your lesons on manners... there is a very good reason for my mis-spelling and apparent bad grammer but that is my business and not yours... I too know lots and lots of lawyers and some are good and some are bad... some give good information and some give wrong information...

I did read all your links and as most of them are old and out of date I dont see how you can claim that they prove that USCIS can and do use the 30/60/90 day rule... I can only talk from my own expirence and from the posts that I have read on VJ of others experences when it comes to doing AOS from a tourist visa... I have seen no evidence of anyone being denied because they got married within 30 days of arriving in the USA and then doing AOS...

My comments to you were intended to point out that you are a ordenary member on VJ but you continue to post as though you were a lawyer giving advice to a client... I would hate to see someone read your posts and think they were getting an answer to a question from an immigration lawyer.... rebecajo has pointed this out to you as well but for some reason you choose not to listen...

There are many many people on here from all walks of life and many diffrent occupations, most of us try to leave our profesional life out of our immigration VJ life... that way we are just people who all are going through a immigration journey and people dont try to be better than others just because of the job we do.. You are very able to express yourself in the written word but please remember that there are many of us who are not as good at that as you are... my comments to you were intended as advice that you might want to listen to, not as an attack on you... you have chosen to take it that way and for that I am sorry...

I think from now on I would be better to ignore your posts because everytime I reply to anything you have posted I just get shot down by you....

Have a good Day

Kez

[am1996 0]

AM, if you reread, you will see that the original post I replied to was not quoting you. I was irritated by the attitude of someone who said (and I paraphrase) "you won't find much information on that [AOS from tourist status] here, because we're all doing things the legal way". That statement was what nudged me to participate in this thread in the first place. I never implied that that issue was with you though.

Then I misunderstood. Sorry about that!

What irritated me about your post was the statement in bold below. Without being a USCIS officer or providing any evidence to support it, I am still waiting to find out how you came to that conclusion.

In other words, although your reasoning above might support certain fairly unusual situations where people get married and are going back and forth on staying here and adjusting status or going back to the home country but eventually decide to AOS, in the vast majority of cases the USCIS is likely to take the position that the alien has violated his/her B2 on the day he/she got married rather than the day the AOS was filed.

The evidence is in the text of the FAM, which I have quoted. Specifically, it refers to the act of "marrying and taking up permanent residence." If USCIS chooses to adhere to the FAM (which, as I've previously posted, is NOT binding on USCIS but, according to all the links I've provided above, is certainly used by USCIS in many cases), then the underlined language becomes an issue. In other words, filing your AOS petition is not the only fact that can be used to evidence you "taking up permanent residence." For instance, as I've posted above, filing tax returns jointly and electing to be treated as a US resident for tax purposes would certainly consitute "taking up permanent residence"; so would making preparations (looking for a job, opening joint bank accounts, getting health insurance in the US, etc...) for a life together in the US; so would a pretty common admission by AOS applicants at interviews that they do intend to reside together in the US and, hence, have applied for an adjustment of status.

Now, if people do get married in the US but the alien then for whatever reason chooses to go back to his/her home country to use the K3/CR route, then the above is a non-issue since permanent residence was never taken up. What I was trying to say above and what all the posts and the articles written by immigration lawyers seem to say is that if the 30/60 day rule is an issue, then the best practice would be not to "get married and take up residency" in the US until after the 60 day period.

Once again, this is just a best practice -- you failure to adhere to it is unlikely, in and of itself, to cause AOS denial. Likewise, your adherence to it will NOT guarantee AOS approval. As I've previously posted, people are advised to type rather than handwrite the information on their applications because it makes it more likely that the application will be processed without errors; people are advised to attach a cover sheet to their AOS applications to make it more likely that parts of their application packages will not be misplaced. The 30/60/90 day presumption that we are discussing falls in the same "best practices" category and adhering to it certainly has the potential to make (but is not guaranteed to make) a much greater difference than typing your applications or attaching cover sheets ever could.

Edited January 18, 2007 by am1996

[am1996 0]

Firstly I do not have any foam at my mouth and secondly please do not judge people by their grammer.... you may well be a very well educated person, but it would appear that you have forgoten your lesons on manners... there is a very good reason for my mis-spelling and apparent bad grammer but that is my business and not yours...

Rightly or wrongly many of us do tend to make judgements about people based on their writing style and their grammar. If I've jumped to conclusions about you, I sincerely apologize. I am a strong proponent of proportionate responses, so when I saw what I believed was an unprovoked and uncalled for personal attack on me and my posts (especially when the information supporting the posts had been provided to you and others), I responded accordingly.

Now, on to the substance:

I did read all your links and as most of them are old and out of date I dont see how you can claim that they prove that USCIS can and do use the 30/60/90 day rule...

Respectfully, I do not believe that any of the links were old and out of date. I linked the most current version of the FAM and the articles discussing the 30/60 day rule are all from about 6 months ago. The BritishExpats link is from 2002, which I clearly indicated in my post -- as far as I can tell and as far as all the additional 2006 articles seem to say, the USCIS' position with respect to the rule still hasn't changed.

I can only talk from my own expirence and from the posts that I have read on VJ of others experences when it comes to doing AOS from a tourist visa... I have seen no evidence of anyone being denied because they got married within 30 days of arriving in the USA and then doing AOS...

As I've already indicated in a number of posts and as the FAM itself and the articles I've linked indicate, you would ordinarily NOT be denied simply because you got married within 30 days. As everyone and everything above has indicated, adherence to the 30/60 day rule falls in the "best practices" category. I am not sure how else to explain this.

My comments to you were intended to point out that you are a ordenary member on VJ but you continue to post as though you were a lawyer giving advice to a client... I would hate to see someone read your posts and think they were getting an answer to a question from an immigration lawyer.... rebecajo has pointed this out to you as well but for some reason you choose not to listen...

No, if I understood rebeccajo correctly, she was trying to say that my posts could consitute UPL, which is an issue that is completely separate and apart from people relying on somebody's post to their detriment. I believe that I've already appropriately addressed the UPL issue by explaining that there is no rule or restriction that prevents duly licensed attorneys from posting their "human" or even "legal" comments and/or observations, especially when they concern FEDERAL matters.

As far as somebody inappropriately relying on a post made on an internet board, that risk and danger is always there, regardless of whether you are an attorney, former CBP officer, a long time forum poster or just somebody who "seems to know what he/she is talking about." That is the reason that we all have been and continue to stress the fact that all cases are different and that it is the readers' responsibility to correctly interpret all posts (regardless of who the posters are) and independently verify their accuracy and applicability. In order to aid them in that task, I post links to other articles/posts/newsletters/statutes/handbooks that further explain the contents of my posts. I would encourage you to do the same thing.

Have a good day, Kez, and don't take all this so personally (yes, in many cases I should learn to heed my own advice). This is just an internet message board.

Edited January 18, 2007 by am1996

[rebeccajo 14]

No, if I understood rebeccajo correctly, she was trying to say that my posts could consitute UPL, which is an issue that is completely separate and apart from people relying on somebody's post to their detriment.

Unauthorized practice often leads to ethics issues. Which can lead to trouble for you.

You seem like a fairly bright guy. I wouldn't think I'd have to wax on exponentially for you to get what I was saying.

[am1996 0]

Unauthorized practice often leads to ethics issues. Which can lead to trouble for you.

You seem like a fairly bright guy. I wouldn't think I'd have to wax on exponentially for you to get what I was saying.

I have no idea why you continue to wax exponentially on this topic when I've already explained it on a few occassions. Immigration lawyers are certainly allowed to analyze, work on and otherwise "practice law" with respect to corporate matters; criminal defense lawyers are certainly allowed to analyze, work on and otherwise "practice law" with respect to real estate matters, etc... Likewise, there is no unauthorized practice of law problem with corporate lawyers analyzing immigration matters. Since immigration law, as discussed here, consists of only federal law, with a few exceptions there is generally no need for lawyers to apply for any additional bar licenses to avoid UPL charges. In other words, corporate, immigration, criminal and every other type of lawyer out there generally has the same exact right to practice immigration law. Are we finally clear on this?

As I've also explained to you, although the definition of "practice of law" varies state to state, in my humble opinion the discussion in this thread is actually a lot LESS likely to even constitute "practice of law" then most of the threads/posts on VJ. What most of the non-lawyer VJ posters do not realize is that under certain circumstances their posts expressing an opinion on various immigration issues, telling others about the best way to complete certain forms, suggesting that they file various forms such as waivers, AP's, EAD's and numerous others can be deemed a "practice of law," which can present a number of problems for those posters. If you would like to become an anti-UPL crusader, you may want to start focusing on those posts.

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

As I've already indicated in a number of posts and as the FAM itself and the articles I've linked indicate, you would ordinarily NOT be denied simply because you got married within 30 days. As everyone and everything above has indicated, adherence to the 30/60 day rule ... yak yak, yak, etc, etc.......

By the way, it is not a rule but is a rebuttable presumption --

I read that somewhere so it has to be TRUE.

Edited January 18, 2007 by jane2005