noid recieved

[Dashinka 23,374]

10 minutes ago, junkmart said:

That is not what OP said in his original post. That is something that other people added.

 

OP said that she was confused at the GC interview due to the language barrier. Either you all missed that, or just ignored it.

This is what the OP is claiming.  None of us were in the interview, so it all is speculation.  There is certainly more to this story, but the interesting thing is intent again being questioned at the interview when someone is adjusting from a visitor visa.  In this case, based on what we do know, it appears she wasn't being denied due to the intent, but rather due to conflicting answers (potentially misrepresentation) potentially due to not understanding, who knows.  We shall see, but when folks get a NOID, they tend to come up with any excuse just like the thread in the News Forum of the man with the Kenyan wife that was denied after they filed a Writ of Mandamus and her AOS was denied.

[junkmart 320]

1 minute ago, Mollie09 said:

Intent alone can't be used for denial (Cavazos, Ibrahim, Batista) so either someone screwed up, or there's more to this story.

Agreed. I think intent was not the sole reason for denial. Instead, I think the reason for the denial is because they are accusing her of misrepresentation, or lying at the POE. Hopefully, a lawyer can help them clear this misunderstanding up.

[JFH 12,189]

11 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

She filed the I-485 long before now......March 15.

But I didn’t interpret the pregnancy as the reason for staying. OP threw that in when it was suggested (when we were still in the dark) that it’s possible the marriage was not seen as bona fide. He never said she wanted to stay because she was pregnant. Although it may be a reason. 

[Crazy Cat 39,634]

2 minutes ago, junkmart said:

I think the reason for the denial is because they are accusing her of misrepresentation, or lying at the POE.

Bingo......I think this is entirely possible........and, as was just said by @Bill & Katya, it is interesting that the subject is even being discussed at an AOS interview.

Edited June 13, 2019 by missileman

[junkmart 320]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

This is what the OP is claiming.  None of us were in the interview, so it all is speculation.  There is certainly more to this story, but the interesting thing is intent again being questioned at the interview when someone is adjusting from a visitor visa.  In this case, based on what we do know, it appears she wasn't being denied due to the intent, but rather due to conflicting answers (potentially misrepresentation) potentially due to not understanding, who knows.  We shall see, but when folks get a NOID, they tend to come up with any excuse just like the thread in the News Forum of the man with the Kenyan wife that was denied after they filed a Writ of Mandamus and her AOS was denied.

So, we can either accuse OP of lying to us in his original and follow up posts and speculate about what actually happened, or we can take what he says at face value and offer solutions.

[Dashinka 23,374]

1 minute ago, missileman said:

What about misrep plus intent?  I'm not accusing......I am asking if entering with intent can generate a misrep......

My thoughts as well.

5 minutes ago, Mollie09 said:

Intent alone can't be used for denial (Cavazos, Ibrahim, Batista) so either someone screwed up, or there's more to this story.

Is it intent alone?  When answers conflict between POE and the AOS interview, that could be construed as misrepresentation.  When most people adjust from a visitor visa or VWP, if the AOS IO asks what their intent was upon entering most likely say they had no plans to adjust in country (I imagine), in this case the OP's wife did not do that potentially due to not understanding the question.  As others have stated, time to get a lawyer.

Just now, junkmart said:

So, we can either accuse OP of lying to us in his original and follow up posts and speculate about what actually happened, or we can take what he says at face value and offer solutions.

I think the solution has been offered, find a good immigration attorney.

[Crazy Cat 39,634]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

When most people adjust from a visitor visa or VWP, if the AOS IO asks what their intent was upon entering most likely say they had no plans to adjust in country

and then there was a poster a year or so ago who admitted that he sold his house, sold most of his belongings, and quit his job immediately before "visiting" his fiance in the US.........it would seem that the empirical evidence would contradict a statement of "I didn't enter with intent"........... He was fearfully awaiting his AOS interview at the time of his last post.

[gabluc 171]

11 hours ago, N-o-l-a said:

 

I don't know your specific community (maybe Somali?), but you really need an immigration lawyer and a translator. He or she will build a case for you that there was no intent to adjust status. Make sure that your wife has someone there going forward, so that she is not misunderstood.

I dont think they have a case here, since she came feb and filed to adjust in march, how can they prove otherwise the intent wasn't to stay? 
 

They said one thing and did something else. 

[gabluc 171]

2 hours ago, Ben&Zian said:

Do like how the OP also blamed the kids for causing distractions by being in the same room haha. Mean if an AOS interview isn't important enough to get a baby sitter or put them into daycare I don't know what is.

THANK YOU! 

[Dashinka 23,374]

1 minute ago, GabLuc said:

I dont think they have a case here, since she came feb and filed to adjust in march, how can they prove otherwise the intent wasn't to stay? 
 

They said one thing and did something else. 

They may not have a case, but that is not really up to us to decide.  Getting a lawyer and digging into it is their only option other than to give up and relocate back to Sweden.

[gabluc 171]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

They may not have a case, but that is not really up to us to decide.  Getting a lawyer and digging into it is their only option other than to give up and relocate back to Sweden.

True. 

 

[Crazy Cat 39,634]

7 minutes ago, GabLuc said:

I dont think they have a case here, since she came feb and filed to adjust in march, how can they prove otherwise the intent wasn't to stay? 
 

They said one thing and did something else. 

That's a good point.....It could also be argued that if they really intended to adjust, they would have waited out the "90 day rule".

[Cryssiekins 976]

17 minutes ago, GabLuc said:

I dont think they have a case here, since she came feb and filed to adjust in march, how can they prove otherwise the intent wasn't to stay? 
 

They said one thing and did something else. 

 

13 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

They may not have a case, but that is not really up to us to decide.  Getting a lawyer and digging into it is their only option other than to give up and relocate back to Sweden.

 

9 minutes ago, missileman said:

That's a good point.....It could also be argued that if they really intended to adjust, they would have waited out the "90 day rule".

By common law (should this make it to a court), the burden of proof would fall onto the petitioner to show there was no prior intent.  It does not actually matter what the border determined at the POE, as humans make errors every single day, but you will be hard pressed to find a government of any common law country let a foreigner gain any benefit from the error of one worker.  USCIS would only need to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the intent WAS to adjust.  Her own words (regardless of barrier) would be used to show this.  

[gabluc 171]

6 minutes ago, Cryssiekins said:

 

 

By common law (should this make it to a court), the burden of proof would fall onto the petitioner to show there was no prior intent.  It does not actually matter what the border determined at the POE, as humans make errors every single day, but you will be hard pressed to find a government of any common law country let a foreigner gain any benefit from the error of one worker.  USCIS would only need to show, on a balance of probabilities, that the intent WAS to adjust.  Her own words (regardless of barrier) would be used to show this.  

also, USCIS forms are very clear and if there are any discrepancies, as you said this will fall on the petitioner.

 

One rule of thumb in the US, DO NOT LIE they will catch you and they will find out.  

[Boiler 43,730]

This reminds me of UFO stories, why do they always seem to happen in certain remote areas, why are the pictures so fuzzy, why do they not happen in downtown LA with full TV coverage.

 

Where is my bucket full of salt?