Non-immigrant visa for pending immigrants

[gryphon 20]

Sounds like she was living in the US on a Visitor Visa.

You will need details of the visits for your immigrant applications. She flew? So should be easy.

Yes, that's all detailed on the I-130, but it's too lengthy to list here at the risk of causing myself and others to go cross-eyed =) She was here quite often, that's definitely true. We didn't think it was an issue, and we've put it out there for USCIS to see. If they say it's a big issue, oh well - Canada here I come.

[KierenHby 897]

I do concur with some elements of the B3-type.. if only our do-nothing politicians could get their act together. Sadly, any immi or visa reforms are way down on Washington's bucket list.

[HFM181818 748]

the time limit imposed is so that this visa is not to be used to merely 'camp out' in the US, waiting for the processing to finish. It's similar to the old K3, but has a different purpose...brief visits only, not to be used for convenience, has no component of medicals, etc....to offer foreign spouses the chance to visit...sorry about the sluggishness, but trying to solve this by hiring 100 times more processors would make the process much more expensive...there are just too many cases to be 'adjudicated' (by stay-at-home housewives living in Idaho), and now with a renewed focus on a more detailed review and possibly interview of the parties (thanks to the two clowns recently drilled), the processing time will get even longer....

another solution, possibly better, is to have the more thoroughly trained COs do the interviewing overseas....

also, the B3 would not be used to live in the US, merely visit for a short period of time.

[gryphon 20]

I guess I still don't understand what's so bad about 'camping out'. If you've let them in the country, then what is the time limit supposed to prevent that's actually bad - if they've got financial support (which can be VERY quickly checked from the US sponsor's tax returns)? The only difference to the US now that my wife is in Canada is that half of our money contributes to Canada's economy instead of the US'. They've still got to return to their home country for the interview process.

I'm not sure I follow your last part about adjudication and so on. Perhaps there was something in the news I missed.

​

I do concur with some elements of the B3-type.. if only our do-nothing politicians could get their act together. Sadly, any immi or visa reforms are way down on Washington's bucket list.

I think that last part is something we can definitely all agree on =)

[Transborderwife 4,666]

The OP's point about why certain rules are in place when they are rarely enforced or are selectively enforced, which leads to a lot of confusion and other problems amongst the traveling public.

Better to legislate loophole-proof rules, have penalties that cannot be waived for those who are irresponsible, which, I hope, might lead to more people getting the chance to visit the US.

In the case of foreign spouses waiting outside the US for the 130 to make its way around USCIS, etc, along the lines of above, is to create a 'B3' visa, solely either for spouses of USCs or LPRs, who are waiting for the paperwork or priority date to arrive, who wish to break up the monotony of sitting by the Skype camera with some visits.

The B3 would allow admission for 30 days, with no extensions and no COS. While possibly issued as a multiple entry visa, the foreign spouse must go back home for at least 30 days before returning again. This new and improved visa would facilitate the wait (hey, there's a slogan for you!), and prevent foreign spouses from having to spend time and money asking for B2 visas and having them denied, which then generates a lot of ill will towards the USG, etc.

Now, on the other side, overstaying a B3 (unless the visa holder is in a coma!) will have some unhappy consequences...let's take the first problem....the B3 holder disappears in the US, never to be seen again....when and if that person ever resurfaces, they are immediately deportable without exception and are permanently barred from ever legally entering the US of A forever and a day...period. No stories, no rationalization, nothing...adios....

Next, the 'gosh I forgot I was supposed to go back' types who overstay by days or weeks....no AOS, the B3 is cancelled, never to be issued again. I might even consider a 6 month 'cooling off' period before completion of the IR1 overseas, just to demotivate people from abusing it, knowing their appointment is scheduled back home....yea, the more I think about that, the better I like it....6 months sounds like long enough to be an annoyance and sends a message: enjoy the privilege, but mess it up and it ends, along with some additional delay....after all, if people use this new visa correctly, enjoy it....preserve it....but for those who think our laws are for others, OK, we have a different end result for you.

And finally, it would be but a matter of moments before a somewhat pregnant foreign spouse arrives on her B3, and then has some doctor's letter saying that she has to stay, etc., in order to have the child....health issues, blah blah....OK...after she's out of the hospital, then two weeks later, she's on a plane back to wherever, to wait for her appointment overseas....again, NO AOS from this new B3 visa. Of course, the airlines should stop boarding women who are 6+ months along....but they seem not to care.

OK....what do you think? (of course, this won't work if Trump is elected president!!!!)

Semantics, but usually a doctor won't clear a post partum mother for travel regardless of method of birth for 6-8 weeks after the birth. It's deemed medically irresponsible not to have the mother finish her post partum care. As well a new baby would need a birth certificate and/or passport in most cases.

[gryphon 20]

Just FYI, I've updated some of the language in the petition based on suggestions here.

[HFM181818 748]

Camping out for extended periods often leads to looking for and accepting unauthorized employment....limiting the visiting time would diminish the likelihood of this happening. Promises not to work are, like any promise made by a visa applicant, worthless and unenforceable.

[gryphon 20]

That seems pretty "guilty until proven innocent" =) If the financial support is proven (via the I-130), it really shouldn't be an issue. I can understand that it could be abused, although I think any employer that's going to abuse that isn't going to care if you have to travel back and forth and it strikes me as rather a spurious way to enforce employment laws. Lack of enforcement with regards to employers themselves and the sledgehammer against immigrants themselves is probably why we have such a prevalent illegal immigration problem. That being said, I think something similar to the 90-day VWP could be a compromise - again, with no allowance for status change. Even a 60-day with 30-day gap is much more fair, although the logistics (of going back and forth) are still just painful. If it's the work issue that's the real problem, the gov't needs to be going after the employers more and stop making the immigrants jump through so many hoops just to "make sure" they're not going to work. But DHS spends a billion just to get 1 USCIS form online after eleven years, so I doubt anything like that will happen anytime soon.

[HFM181818 748]

Maybe so, but an easy conclusion to draw....after all, how many foreign spouses are realistically going to hang around the house for weeks and weeks, watching telenovelas? Very few.

I agree that there is a virtual total lack of enforcement by DHS (probably politically driven, with a do-nothing Congress that wants everything both ways), but the lack of enforcement I believe contributes to visa denials, as any experienced CO is fully aware of this problem and thus is (should be) very unwilling to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

[newacct 688]

That seems pretty "guilty until proven innocent" =) If the financial support is proven (via the I-130), it really shouldn't be an issue.

I-130 doesn't have anything to do with financial support

[gryphon 20]

If you can't financially sponsor your relative, then the I-130 is moot. Yes, technically it's the I-864, sorry.

[newacct 688]

If you can't financially sponsor your relative, then the I-130 is moot. Yes, technically it's the I-864, sorry.

The petition doesn't have anything to do with financial sponsorship. It's a later step (Consular Processing or Adjustment of Status) where that comes into play.

[gryphon 20]

Yes. I get your point.

For some reason it was stuck in my head that the affidavit of support was part of that step. Regardless, if financial support needs to be proven before granting a "family visitor visa", that could be part of the process.

[Chris and ZhiJia 146]

I like HFM's solution conditions and all, but I cannot help but feel that the OP's reason for wanting an alternative solution was because his wife, who had a valid visitor visa, entered and overstayed. Essentially he is saying please forgive us for breaking the law and let her come back in, we won't break the law again I swear. This in and of itself already falls into one of HFM's clauses, where when they overstay their visa is revoked, never to be issued again, and their IR1/CR1 receives a 6month obey the laws next time penalty. His wife had no problem coming and going until she broke the law.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Chris.M

[gryphon 20]

Yea, I can't really argue with that - though really it (the petition) isn't about just my wife's situation, as it would be HIGHLY likely that even if anything changed it would be too late to make any difference. Also the overstay and never issue again would be for the visa issued while the processing was occurring. We had never initiated immigration procedures before the overstay. It doesn't make much difference either way, but just clarifying =)

I also don't think it's terribly inconceivable that I'd be upset about the situation and want to look for alternatives. As I've said before, the question shouldn't JUST be "What are you doing that you need to change the way things are?" but also "Does it make sense to have things the way they are?".