marriage on tourist visa

[rebeccajo 14]

This comes up every now and then, there was a long thread some time back on www.briitishexpats.com

Anyway the conclusion was that there is no such rule, the thread had a number of IMMIGRATION Lawyers contributing.

That pretty much killed it as a topic, odd to see it come up here again.

Boiler you read my mind.

[am1996 0]

This comes up every now and then, there was a long thread some time back on www.briitishexpats.com

Anyway the conclusion was that there is no such rule, the thread had a number of IMMIGRATION Lawyers contributing.

That pretty much killed it as a topic, odd to see it come up here again.

Right, would this be the long thread discussing it: http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100004

As I've also mentioned, the 30/60 day issue is addressed in the following:

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

Here is a copy of an old INS case where the rule was applied: http://www.gani.com/immigration/3060day.pdf

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

If we are talking about the same thread(s), then the conclusion is that DOS' procedural guidelines are certainly not binding on USCIS but that USCIS has in a number of cases chosen to adhere to them. As such, the articles that I've posted above written by immigration lawyers recommend paying attention to it and generally put it in a "best practice" category. Agreed?

Edited January 19, 2007 by am1996

[rebeccajo 14]

am1996, why don't you wander over to www.britishexpats.com and ask Folinskyla?

[am1996 0]

am1996, why don't you wander over to www.britishexpats.com and ask Folinskyla?

My previous firm has one of the largest business immigration departments in the country. I got quite curious about the issue and called two of my former colleagues (business immigration lawyers) there last night for a quick chat. Their impressions are the same as mine -- the 30/60 day presumption is a procedural guideline that is not binding on the USCIS but the USCIS has used it in the past and, as far as they knew, the courts do not have a problem with the practice. Hence, the advice given by numerous immigration lawyers to quite a few posters on this board and elsewhere that it's not a bad idea to be aware of this practice.

Just out of curiosity, do we have any posts regarding immigration lawyers telling people anything to the contrary?

[Boiler 43,680]

am1996, why don't you wander over to www.britishexpats.com and ask Folinskyla?

My previous firm has one of the largest business immigration departments in the country. I got quite curious about the issue and called two of my former colleagues (business immigration lawyers) there last night for a quick chat. Their impressions are the same as mine -- the 30/60 day presumption is a procedural guideline that is not binding on the USCIS but the USCIS has used it in the past and, as far as they knew, the courts do not have a problem with the practice. Hence, the advice given by numerous immigration lawyers to quite a few posters on this board and elsewhere that it's not a bad idea to be aware of this practice.

Just out of curiosity, do we have any posts regarding immigration lawyers telling people anything to the contrary?

How would a Businness Immigration Lawyer come across this?

As far as I am aware this is a Family Immigration issue only.

[Boiler 43,680]

This comes up every now and then, there was a long thread some time back on www.briitishexpats.com

Anyway the conclusion was that there is no such rule, the thread had a number of IMMIGRATION Lawyers contributing.

That pretty much killed it as a topic, odd to see it come up here again.

Right, would this be the long thread discussing it: http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100004

As I've also mentioned, the 30/60 day issue is addressed in the following:

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

Here is a copy of an old INS case where the rule was applied: http://www.gani.com/immigration/3060day.pdf

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

If we are talking about the same thread(s), then the conclusion is that DOS' procedural guidelines are certainly not binding on USCIS but that USCIS has in a number of cases chosen to adhere to them. As such, the articles that I've posted above written by immigration lawyers recommend paying attention to it and generally put it in a "best practice" category. Agreed?

Here you are:

Hi Rete:

Tried the new search function to locate the long discussion that Paul Gani and I had a long long time ago on the issue.

For the others who are wondering about this -- the "30/60" is an INTERNAL State Department guideline for determining when an "advisory" opinion is required to support a 212(a)(6)©(i) finding of misrepresentation made based upon conduct subsequent to an affirmative representation. It got taken out of context and blown up into a substantive "rule" -- which it is not.

However, it does pop up from time to time even from DHS officers and immigration attorneys who don't know better.

As for the posting on "intent" -- "pre-conceived intent" is a discretionary factor as long as there was no affirmative "misrepresentation." The law is quite clear on this. However, I just worked on a DCF & K-3 where we have a "misrepresentation" finding from Atlanta airport in the context of an expedited removal at time of application for entry. The expedited removal for "no valid visa" was righteous, but the bonus 212(a)(6)©(i) finding was not inasmuch as it was only pre-conceived intent to work when she was never questioned about her plans. I briefed the waiver support brief on the ground that the "negative equity" of the fraud was ain't all that negative since the finding had no basis in law.

"Folinskyinla"

Certified Specialist

Immigration & Nationality Law

Calif. Bar Board of Legal Specialization

Just a sample, probably much much more if you want to look.

[am1996 0]

Exactly. How is that post inconsistent with any of my posts in this thread or with any of the information I have linked?

As for the business immigration lawyers being familiar with family immigration issues, I am not sure why that is surprising. Very few of us concentrate solely on a small and well defined niche area of the law. Instead, as time goes on, we are often called upon to conduct research and to answer questions in areas other than our primary specialization. As you probably know, a law license is just a general legal license which, with very few exceptions, allows us to practice law and to offer legal advice in any legal area that we choose. As such, quite a few of us are able to answer questions either with or without additonal research in areas other than that of our primary concentration. I don't mean to speak for my friends specializing in business immigration, but it is actually extremely common for family immigration lawyers to be quite familiar with business immigration issues and vice versa.

[marcycat 0]

First of all, ughh. I HATE it when these discussions turn into fights. Probably anyone who was interested in the topic has stopped reading. But just in case not, I can say that my cousin married an Italian who came on a tourist visa. (They intended that.) I don't really know the details of their whole story. But the long and the short of it is that it worked out fine. He never had to leave the US, he's working (legally), they just never seemed to have a problem. The only issue they MIGHT have had is that it took a bit before he had work authorization.

I'm separated from my husband, and have done everything by the book --- and sometimes think we're suckers for trying to do things right....