10 years ban or not?

[belinda63 2,981]

Anyway I don't think a marriage after you agreed to VD is going to do anything for you. Not enough time to get the medical, file the I-130, get the NOA-1, file a MTR, etc. All have to be done in a linear fashion, they can't be done concurrently. I would worry about wrapping up your business here and packing your bags. A marriage after VD is bad enough but if you fail to leave that is going to make it that much worse.

[schizzo_fg 1]

15th June you were married, 23rd June you are considering getting married, so divorced in between time?

Bingo!

[schizzo_fg 1]

Anyway I don't think a marriage after you agreed to VD is going to do anything for you. Not enough time to get the medical, file the I-130, get the NOA-1, file a MTR, etc. All have to be done in a linear fashion, they can't be done concurrently. I would worry about wrapping up your business here and packing your bags. A marriage after VD is bad enough but if you fail to leave that is going to make it that much worse.

Actually I don't need any of that to re-open a case. All I need is evidence of good faith marriage and proof that there is an I-130 pending adjuidication. The judge will tell me about the rest if and he re-opens my proceedings and believes my marriage is good faith

If MTR gets denied, I'll leave US with an order of removal (instead of just an order of VD (punishment is the same - 10 years), which means one more waiver to be filed from oversea. (I-601 & I-212).

Why would I not want to try my chances from here, before trying my chances from oversea, especially cosidering the fact that regardless of what I do, the sentence for living is the same?

[belinda63 2,981]

Yes, waiting for receipt, hoping to convince IJ to re-open my case with just receipt of acceptance of I-130 and marriage license. We have children togeher, so hightened burdeon proof of bona fide marriage is there !!!

So you seem confused. You say you have already filed the I-130 and are waiting on the receipt. Now you are asking if you should file the I-130. You don't have enough time. It takes weeks to get the receipt, then you have to file for the MTR and see if it will be granted. I believe (got tired of trying to follow the thread again), you have to leave in a few weeks (3 maybe).

[schizzo_fg 1]

So you seem confused. You say you have already filed the I-130 and are waiting on the receipt. Now you are asking if you should file the I-130. You don't have enough time. It takes weeks to get the receipt, then you have to file for the MTR and see if it will be granted. I believe (got tired of trying to follow the thread again), you have to leave in a few weeks (3 maybe).

I don't care if the judge makes his decision after the three weeks, I'll still be here and the MTR filing will rescind the VD, so I will not be overstaying the VD. As far as the I-130, if I don't get receipt on time, I can certainly demonstrate I overnighted it, copy of the form, filing fee, documents sent... ... and proof of deliverance through FedEx tracking # that it was delivered at their office.... ...

I'm still going to try, MTR gets denied, I'll leave after that. MTR gets granted, 50% of the job is done.

[zuluweta 250]

I don't care if the judge makes his decision after the three weeks, I'll still be here and the MTR filing will rescind the VD, so I will not be overstaying the VD. As far as the I-130, if I don't get receipt on time, I can certainly demonstrate I overnighted it, copy of the form, filing fee, documents sent... ... and proof of deliverance through FedEx tracking # that it was delivered at their office.... ...

I'm still going to try, MTR gets denied, I'll leave after that. MTR gets granted, 50% of the job is done.

However things turn out, the mathematical probability that you get a 10-year bar is higher than you being able to adjust status and get a green card. Plus, you already agreed to VD! Is there new information you will be providing (other than marrying a U.S. Citizen, which is looked at with suspicion when done during removal proceedings) that an immigration judge might consider as noteworthy enough to reopen your case?

[schizzo_fg 1]

However things turn out, the mathematical probability that you get a 10-year bar is higher than you being able to adjust status and get a green card. Plus, you already agreed to VD! Is there new information you will be providing (other than marrying a U.S. Citizen, which is looked at with suspicion when done during removal proceedings) that an immigration judge might consider as noteworthy enough to reopen your case?

Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1996)

(1) Reopening may be had where the new facts alleged, together with the facts already of record, indicate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues at a hearing. Where ruling on a motion requires the exercise of judgment regarding eligibility for the relief sought, the Board does not require a conclusive showing that, assuming the facts alleged to be true, eligibility for relief has been established. By granting reopening the Board does not rule on the ultimate merits of the application for relief. Matter of Sipus, 14 I&N Dec. 229 (BIA 1972), reaffirmed.

However things turn out, the mathematical probability that you get a 10-year bar is higher than you being able to adjust status and get a green card. Plus, you already agreed to VD! Is there new information you will be providing (other than marrying a U.S. Citizen, which is looked at with suspicion when done during removal proceedings) that an immigration judge might consider as noteworthy enough to reopen your case?

Matter of Lamus, 25 I&N Dec. 61 (BIA 2009)

A motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status based on a marriage entered into after the commencement of removal proceedings may not be denied under the fifth factor enumerated in Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002), based on the mere fact that the Government has filed an opposition to the motion, without regard to the merit of that opposition.

[Boiler 43,446]

Whatever you decide to do I strongly suggest you get your story straight, an IJ will not be so accommodating.

[schizzo_fg 1]

The marriage is real and it looks like the case will be re-opened, looking at these caselaws. If I lose, I'll leave and do the waiver, if I win, I adjust from here. Risky, but not impossible. No judge has told me no, yet. And I can also appeal his denial to the BIA. So, I still have legal tools to make it.

Until I get a final no, I won't surrender. My daughters depend on me and I'm no criminal. Simply a student overstay (civil violation) who couldn't marry any earlier, because divorce from previous wife hadn't arrived yet, but had a life together ever since.

Thanks for all the input: good, bad or different. I'll keep you all posted !

[zuluweta 250]

Matter of L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413 (BIA 1996)

(1) Reopening may be had where the new facts alleged, together with the facts already of record, indicate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, so as to make it worthwhile to develop the issues at a hearing. Where ruling on a motion requires the exercise of judgment regarding eligibility for the relief sought, the Board does not require a conclusive showing that, assuming the facts alleged to be true, eligibility for relief has been established. By granting reopening the Board does not rule on the ultimate merits of the application for relief. Matter of Sipus, 14 I&N Dec. 229 (BIA 1972), reaffirmed.

Matter of Lamus, 25 I&N Dec. 61 (BIA 2009)

A motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status based on a marriage entered into after the commencement of removal proceedings may not be denied under the fifth factor enumerated in Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002), based on the mere fact that the Government has filed an opposition to the motion, without regard to the merit of that opposition.

That's a big leap to go from having your MTR approved to getting an immigration judge to rescind your VD and then to having your AOS approved.

[belinda63 2,981]

Sounds like you never intended to VD but rather you were just buying time. Like you are trying to do now, Like you tried to do when you went to Canada and returned.

[Boiler 43,446]

You can play the system for decades, seen it many times.

[schizzo_fg 1]

That's a big leap to go from having your MTR approved to getting an immigration judge to rescind your VD and then to having your AOS approved.

Is it impossible, though? Answer that!

[schizzo_fg 1]

You can play the system for decades, seen it many times.

Exactly!

Boiler, you seem to understand that immigration is not a perfect system. It's one of the most confusing and always changing laws. People with real multiple convictions win the system all the time. It bothers me that for a guy like me that has never had any issues, just overstayed, that I get to go home.

No one is being shady here, no one is trying to cut corners. I am only using my legal rights to file a motion to re-open my case and then prove that my marriage is real, which it is! Will it look suspicious because of the timing of my marriage? Yes! You're innocent until proven guilty, however. I'll have to prove that my marriage is good faith by clear and convincing evidence, ICE will have to prove that is not. That's where I have an adavantage! They won't be able to prove with any evidence that my marriage is not real or a sham or fraud. Me on the contrary, I have plenty of evidence that my marriage is real and I'm not worried.

My story holds:

I was unable to legally marry because previous divorce wasn't final. There was no application I could submit to the court yet at the time when proceedings were open. The divorce arrived after 12 months of fighting and it arrived withing the VD period. Nothing I could control, but it arrived. I decided to marry my fiancee before leaving the US, which we legally did and now I will ask the judge to re-consider. If he says no, fine! I'll leave, if he says yes, and he re-opens, I'm pretty sure he'll do that because he sees the legal status at the end I can gain if he re-opens the case. He'll be more than compelled to re-open, even if at first glance the timing looks suspicious, but the law is somewhat clear. Read this: (a pending prima facie approvable visa petition would be treated as though it were already approved for purposes of reopening. Id.; see also Matter of Guiragossian, 17 I&N Dec. 161, 164 n. 5 (BIA 1979).

I don't understand why people in this thread seem to be so anti adjustment of status, simply because of the timing of my marriage, but everyone is entitled to their opinions. At the end of the day, no one knows what will happen until it happens. None of the things I read on here are absolute truths, beause our immigration system is so, so broken!

[schizzo_fg 1]

Sounds like you never intended to VD but rather you were just buying time. Like you are trying to do now, Like you tried to do when you went to Canada and returned.

I actually had every intention to leave, that's how I started this thread, remember? It wasn't about AOS, it was about the 10 years bar I was trying to avoid. My plans changed when the divorce came through. Now I have a legal marriage to USC that wasn't entered to trick the system, but just a marriage that couln't have happened any earlier because divorce from wife #1 wasn't final yet. You can tell me all day long that is not going to work, belinda63.

At the end of the day, you're not a judge, you're not an attorney, and I'm not either. I'm only a father of three young USC citizens and a husband of a US citizen that is using the legal means allowed to change my status to a legal one while I can, while in this country. It sounds, it seems, it may it may not ... ... all of that doesn't guarantee the positive or negative outcome of my case. Only time will tell, and I'm willing to take my chances.

As you know by now, I don't give up easily in anything I do. I studied the law pertinent to my case, I studied the caselaws that will help my case and none of what people have been saying in this thread that it will not work really matters. So... ...

what's your next anti-adjustment statement you have for me, Belinda63?