My Indo wife was denied twice for tourist visa

[WeGuyGal 1,052]

Long story short, with no plans for the wife to live in the US, any I130/GC talk is a no-go. She has to apply again for a B2 visa and hope for an understanding CO. 

 

When applicants hesitate (eg who do you want to meet in the US and the response is umm..uhh.. a friend), COs see that hesitation as the applicant hiding something. COs are trained to read interviewees and body language. They interview thousands over the course of their career. They see the desperation to say anything to obtain a visa. 

[Halo Bule 8]

@WeGuyGalwhat are your thoughts on the previous comment? Has anyone else heard of this method working?

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

10 minutes ago, Halo Bule said:

@WeGuyGalwhat are your thoughts on the previous comment? Has anyone else heard of this method working?

You have to be resident/domiciled  in the US to apply for a green card for your wife. According to you, you live in Indonesia and only visit the US a few months a year for seasonal work?

 

but yes theoretically if you have the time (12-14 months] and money to spend on it and the patience to gather all the evidence proving your marriage is genuine , and somehow show domicile in the US, maybe moving back properly before her visa interview, then getting a green card just to prove she doesn’t want it would probably work.

Edited May 31, 2019 by SusieQQQ

[JE57 239]

I believe (others can correct me if I'm wrong) that Domicile is not the same as Residence.  So a person can have a US Domicile without actually residing there.  Things like bank accounts, property etc can be used.  Also I believe domicile check is at Interview time not before and it should be sufficient to show intent to establish domicile if not already domiciled in the USA.  Much of what I've said above is based on my own experience although that was for a K-1 visa not spousal.   My (now wife fiancee at the time) were living overseas and applied K-1 from abroad.  They ultimately appoved her visa contingent on me showing intent to establish domicile.   If the original poster got this far he should have no problem with the domicile questions as he has US based income, likely a US postal address, US bank account, and other ties to the USA that would likely satisfy the domicile question.   In my case we went to the USA stayed less than 3 months, got married there and returned overseas.  She then went for her 2nd tourist visa (was denied the first one) and was approved.  They asked her why she had not stayed in the USA and she explained that I (the USC) lived and worked now overseas and then gave her the B2 without further questions.  Over the years there have been similar posts about people giving up green cards and getting previously denied tourist Visas and while it wasn't a greencard in my case it did work for us.   So yes, I agree with @SusieQQQ that the domicile question could be a 'challenge' but I think there are ways thru it because as I said I'm very sure that Domicile does not equal residence and Domicile is 'Easier' than Residence.  It's also, in my opinion that they should be completely honest if asked about what they are doing.  They don't want to get slapped with a mis-represent for going for a spousal without intent to stay in the USA.   Although who's to say that they wouldn't get there on a spousal and she decides that she could make a much better living with her event planning business in the USA..  She'd have that option.  Could be great choice!  If they are open to it then it makes the whole application better.  Certainly it seems immigration seems to think that is exactly what she's going to do. 

 

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

6 minutes ago, JE57 said:

I believe (others can correct me if I'm wrong) that Domicile is not the same as Residence.  So a person can have a US Domicile without actually residing there.  Things like bank accounts, property etc can be used.  Also I believe domicile check is at Interview time not before and it should be sufficient to show intent to establish domicile if not already domiciled in the USA.  Much of what I've said above is based on my own experience although that was for a K-1 visa not spousal.   My (now wife fiancee at the time) were living overseas and applied K-1 from abroad.  They ultimately appoved her visa contingent on me showing intent to establish domicile.   If the original poster got this far he should have no problem with the domicile questions as he has US based income, likely a US postal address, US bank account, and other ties to the USA that would likely satisfy the domicile question.   In my case we went to the USA stayed less than 3 months, got married there and returned overseas.  She then went for her 2nd tourist visa (was denied the first one) and was approved.  They asked her why she had not stayed in the USA and she explained that I (the USC) lived and worked now overseas and then gave her the B2 without further questions.  Over the years there have been similar posts about people giving up green cards and getting previously denied tourist Visas and while it wasn't a greencard in my case it did work for us.   So yes, I agree with @SusieQQQ that the domicile question could be a 'challenge' but I think there are ways thru it because as I said I'm very sure that Domicile does not equal residence and Domicile is 'Easier' than Residence.  It's also, in my opinion that they should be completely honest if asked about what they are doing.  They don't want to get slapped with a mis-represent for going for a spousal without intent to stay in the USA.   Although who's to say that they wouldn't get there on a spousal and she decides that she could make a much better living with her event planning business in the USA..  She'd have that option.  Could be great choice!  If they are open to it then it makes the whole application better.  Certainly it seems immigration seems to think that is exactly what she's going to do. 

 

So according to USCIS this is domicile:

 

Domicile is the place where a sponsor has his or her principal “residence” with the intention to maintain that residence for the foreseeable future.  To qualify as a financial sponsor, a petitioner must be domiciled in any of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States.  A lawful permanent resident (LPR) sponsor also must maintain his or her LPR status. 

A sponsor who is not currently living in the United States may meet the domicile requirement if he or she can submit evidence to establish that any of the following conditions apply:

The sponsor is employed by a certain organization. 

The sponsor is living abroad temporarily and has maintained his or her domicile in the United States.

The sponsor intends in good faith to establish his or her domicile in the United States no later than the date of the intending immigrant’s admission to the United States.

 

Source https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/collect-and-submit-forms-and-documents-to-the-nvc/establish-financial-support/i-864-affidavit-faqs.html

 

From your description (“ In my case we went to the USA stayed less than 3 months, got married there and returned overseas”) what you did was deliberately game the system to mislead them as to where your domicile was -it was neither your principal residence and where you planned to continue living, nor where you intended in good faith to live.  I believe there is something in VJ’s terms of service about advising people to circumvent immigration requirements. 

 

 

[JE57 239]

1 hour ago, SusieQQQ said:

So according to USCIS this is domicile:

 

Domicile is the place where a sponsor has his or her principal “residence” with the intention to maintain that residence for the foreseeable future.  To qualify as a financial sponsor, a petitioner must be domiciled in any of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States.  A lawful permanent resident (LPR) sponsor also must maintain his or her LPR status. 

A sponsor who is not currently living in the United States may meet the domicile requirement if he or she can submit evidence to establish that any of the following conditions apply:

The sponsor is employed by a certain organization. 

The sponsor is living abroad temporarily and has maintained his or her domicile in the United States.

The sponsor intends in good faith to establish his or her domicile in the United States no later than the date of the intending immigrant’s admission to the United States.

 

Source https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/the-immigrant-visa-process/collect-and-submit-forms-and-documents-to-the-nvc/establish-financial-support/i-864-affidavit-faqs.html

 

From your description (“ In my case we went to the USA stayed less than 3 months, got married there and returned overseas”) what you did was deliberately game the system to mislead them as to where your domicile was -it was neither your principal residence and where you planned to continue living, nor where you intended in good faith to live.  I believe there is something in VJ’s terms of service about advising people to circumvent immigration requirements. 

 

 

"what you did was deliberately game the system to mislead them as to where your domicile was -it was neither your principal residence and where you planned to continue living, "

I can understand how what I said could be read to believe that.  However, my circumstances was that I was returning from the a temporary assignment overseas with the probability of being able to be offered a position back in my overseas location but no guarantees.  At the time of my return to the USA I had full employment in the USA and no residence abroad although likelyhood of being able to return.  

-

As far as advising people to circumvent immigration requirements...  No... definately not my intent.  In this process HONESTY is KING above all else.  But in this case.. I do believe that what you posted does mean that the original poster may be able to meet the domicile requirement..  The OP is employed by a US organization and almost certainly pays US taxes and pays SS on US based income,  also while the period of time spend overseas is likely greater than that of the time spend in the USA the nature of his time in Indonesia is likely truly temporary.   The statements above are OR conditions no AND conditions so meeting anyone of the 3 would qualify for domicile in the USA.   His wife if asked if she intends to remain in the USA should as always state the TRUTH.  In fact, there is no reason that the OP on his petition couldn't include a written statement explaining exactly what he is hoping to accomplish.   She is being denied a non-immigrant visa for having apparent Immigrant intent and there is no logical hope of that decision changing the only logical approach therefore in my mind is to proceed with the Immigrant visa application and then if she decides to return (very likely) then doing so should enable a B1.

-

Downside?   This adds another application to the QUEUE and potentially delays the processing for everyone else a little bit.   But I fail to see how this would represent any fraud or circumvention of immigration requirements.  

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

30 minutes ago, JE57 said:

"what you did was deliberately game the system to mislead them as to where your domicile was -it was neither your principal residence and where you planned to continue living, "

I can understand how what I said could be read to believe that.  However, my circumstances was that I was returning from the a temporary assignment overseas with the probability of being able to be offered a position back in my overseas location but no guarantees.  At the time of my return to the USA I had full employment in the USA and no residence abroad although likelyhood of being able to return.  

-

As far as advising people to circumvent immigration requirements...  No... definately not my intent.  In this process HONESTY is KING above all else.  But in this case.. I do believe that what you posted does mean that the original poster may be able to meet the domicile requirement..  The OP is employed by a US organization and almost certainly pays US taxes and pays SS on US based income,  also while the period of time spend overseas is likely greater than that of the time spend in the USA the nature of his time in Indonesia is likely truly temporary.   The statements above are OR conditions no AND conditions so meeting anyone of the 3 would qualify for domicile in the USA.   His wife if asked if she intends to remain in the USA should as always state the TRUTH.  In fact, there is no reason that the OP on his petition couldn't include a written statement explaining exactly what he is hoping to accomplish.   She is being denied a non-immigrant visa for having apparent Immigrant intent and there is no logical hope of that decision changing the only logical approach therefore in my mind is to proceed with the Immigrant visa application and then if she decides to return (very likely) then doing so should enable a B1.

-

Downside?   This adds another application to the QUEUE and potentially delays the processing for everyone else a little bit.   But I fail to see how this would represent any fraud or circumvention of immigration requirements.  

“the nature of his time in Indonesia is likely truly temporary.”

 

not according to OP., who has repeatedly insisted they want to live in Indonesia. I agree that if he is prepared to do it by being open and frank about his actual domicile and true intentions for the green card then he should go ahead. Not pretending he’s going to move back to the US permanently. Yeah, so what if other genuine applicants get their timelines pushed back by people doing this? Not your or his problem, i get that.

 

as for paying US taxes...I am sure you are as aware as anyone else here that USCs (and LPRs) are required to file with the irs and pay US tax if necessary irrespective of where they live. It is meaningless as proof of domicile, all it proves is that one has kept up with his or her obligations. 

[Halo Bule 8]

1. I still have a residence in the USA / physical address. I do not own it but it is my residence with my belongings , my passport, drivers license and everything else including bank accounts are tied to that residence.

2. I am currently employed by a US company even though it is seasonal I still network and keep in contact with my clients as a salesman.

3. I just finished my taxes for 2018

4. I still have my US phone number

 

my original plan was to travel back and forth from USA and Indonesia.  I do not intend to give up my American Citizenship. 

I believe my wife should be able to see my home as I have seen hers. I am willing to do whatever it takes to be with my wife. If I can keep my job and residence while doing this while she can be at my side then .... then more power to us.

if I need to find a job overseas then that’s what I will do since her ties are stronger with me than Indonesia. This would make Indonesia strong again.

 

the truth of the matter is, my wife doesn’t want to give up her indonesian citizenship as I do not want to give up mine. I know it might be a tough road ahead of us...! It already has. At this point we are both willing to do whatever it takes as long as we abide by all rules and regulations. All we can do is continue to be honest until someone believes us right? We are not looking for holes in the system but simply using whatever tools are in front of us to keep us together. Being together is our human right and we will both always fight for this. There are pros and cons to marrying someone from a different country but I think it is worth it especially when the person is loyal and honest.

Edited May 31, 2019 by Halo Bule

[Halo Bule 8]

Who knows, she might decide she does want to live in the USA eventually , doesn’t she have the right to visit it first ?  I believe everyone should be able to visit a place before they decide to move there. It would be foolish otherwise.

[Halo Bule 8]

So many people with dreams about moving to the USA ..... a lot decide to come right back..  right now the State of California has more people moving out then in! 

[JE57 239]

6 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

“the nature of his time in Indonesia is likely truly temporary.”

 

not according to OP., who has repeatedly insisted they want to live in Indonesia. I agree that if he is prepared to do it by being open and frank about his actual domicile and true intentions for the green card then he should go ahead. Not pretending he’s going to move back to the US permanently. Yeah, so what if other genuine applicants get their timelines pushed back by people doing this? Not your or his problem, i get that.

 

as for paying US taxes...I am sure you are as aware as anyone else here that USCs (and LPRs) are required to file with the irs and pay US tax if necessary irrespective of where they live. It is meaningless as proof of domicile, all it proves is that one has kept up with his or her obligations. 

As for taxes... Absolutely something that needs to be considered..  I don't pay US taxes as I don't make enough to exceed the generous overseas income exemption (yet).. But that's because I have non--US income and have have legitimate residence overseas.   I expect that he pays US taxes.  So it doesn't specifically speak to domicile but if he's paying and not taking an exemption then I think that's further evidence of US domicile.   

It is truly a shame how US Immigration works in regards to those of us who have lived outside the USA for years with our spouse and then potentially have to move back to the USA on short notice and have to leave family behind for 1 to 2 years.  Used to be that DCF would make that easier but... Alas no more.  

I absolutely positively always advise being 120% honest with the US Government.  Any attempt to deceive the Gov. carries with it a HUGE risk. 

[geowrian 22,335]

1 hour ago, JE57 said:

I believe (others can correct me if I'm wrong) that Domicile is not the same as Residence.  So a person can have a US Domicile without actually residing there.  Things like bank accounts, property etc can be used.  Also I believe domicile check is at Interview time not before and it should be sufficient to show intent to establish domicile if not already domiciled in the USA.

Domicile and residence are not the same thing, although the definition provided above is in line with the INA. The key item is "principle residence", which refers to where one actually resides more often than not.

 

Background (spoiler tagged for those uninterested with details):

Spoiler

See INA 213(f)(1): http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1183a&num=0&edition=prelim

Quote

In general, For purposes of this section the term "sponsor" in relation to a sponsored alien means an individual who executes an affidavit of support with respect to the sponsored alien and who-...

...

(C) is domiciled in any of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States;

and 9 FAM 302.8-2(C)(5): https://fam.state.gov/fam/09fam/09fam030208.html#M302_8_2_C_5

Quote

For the purposes of INA 213A, the sponsor must be domiciled in any of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States (for these purposes, “in the United States”). "Domicile" means: the place where a sponsor has his or her principal "residence" with the intention to maintain that residence for the foreseeable future.

and the definition of "residence" for this purpose identified in INA 101(a)(33): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101

Quote

The term “residence” means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.

 

Putting all of this together means that one must actually be living in the US to have US domicile.

 

However, note subsections (b) and (c) in the FAM above, which establish requirements for showing intent to establish domicile in lieu of actual domicile as well as guidelines for determining where the principal abode is. This is where it gets tricky as it's entirely a judgement call by the CO.

 

Bringing this back to the OP's situation, I don't think they would have a strong argument as the actual intent is not to live in the US.

 

1 hour ago, JE57 said:

Much of what I've said above is based on my own experience although that was for a K-1 visa not spousal.  

This is crucial. The I-134 for a K-1 does not have a mandatory requirement to show domicile. It's strictly a tool to help the CO assess if the applicant will become a public charge. Some COs don't request one. Some generally accept co sponsors and some don't. Some want to see everything at the same level of the I-864.

 

The I-864 does have a mandatory domicile - or intent to establish US domicile - requirement.

 

1 minute ago, Halo Bule said:

Who knows, she might decide she does want to live in the USA eventually , doesn’t she have the right to visit it first ?  I believe everyone should be able to visit a place before they decide to move there. It would be foolish otherwise.

That's your perspective, but the US government does not believe any such right exists. No non-US citizen is entitled to step foot within the US borders, let alone a visitor.

Whether it would be foolish or not is a personal concern, but not a concern of the US government.

[Halo Bule 8]

@geowrian yes I know the government is just doing their job.... just wishful thinking for my own situation. 

 

I want to to thank everyone again who has contributed to my post whether it be a fact or opinion... good or bad .... it has helped me to get my head out of the fog and have a deeper understanding of what Path we should take. I will update this story on my website as well as here. I will also post my vlog on YouTube in a couple of days filming this event  in case you want to put a face with this story. I’ll post a link to the video later.

 

thanks again !

 

Gerry & Veronica

 

 

[Crazy Cat 39,222]

1 minute ago, Halo Bule said:

@geowrian yes I know the government is just doing their job.... just wishful thinking for my own situation. 

 

I want to to thank everyone again who has contributed to my post whether it be a fact or opinion... good or bad .... it has helped me to get my head out of the fog and have a deeper understanding of what Path we should take. I will update this story on my website as well as here. I will also post my vlog on YouTube in a couple of days filming this event  in case you want to put a face with this story. I’ll post a link to the video later.

 

thanks again !

 

Gerry & Veronica

 

 

I am interested in seeing your vlog.....Thanks...

[WeGuyGal 1,052]

4 hours ago, Halo Bule said:

Who knows, she might decide she does want to live in the USA eventually , doesn’t she have the right to visit it first ?  I believe everyone should be able to visit a place before they decide to move there. It would be foolish otherwise.

A visit visa is a privilege, not a right.