90 DAY INTENT

[caliliving 606]

as i fellow canadian, i did the same thing! you are FINE!

the 90 day myth is similar to the 'invitation letter for a b2 visa' myth lol

 

[ultrasoul 51]

Even if the 90 day rule did exists, it gets waived and is ignored for immediate relatives of USC (spouse, parent, children under age of 21)

[Crazy Cat 39,192]

19 minutes ago, ultrasoul said:

Even if the 90 day rule did exists, it gets waived and is ignored for immediate relatives of USC (spouse, parent, children under age of 21)

Please post a reference for that statement.  I think you are confusing that DOS guidance with bars for unlawful presence.....which totally different.

Edited February 14, 2020 by missileman

[josue818 20]

I don't think the attorney was 100% wrong as many have said here. I think the attorney OP spoke to might not have explained the 90 day rule to him thoroughly. Yes as some have explained the 90 day rule is a rule form the DOS and USCIS is not bound to follow it, BUT IT CAN. Just because USCIS is not bound by a rule from another agency it does not mean they cannot follow it. In fact when the 30/60 day rule was in place, USCIS did apply it in many cases and when people appealed the application of the rule to the AAO the AAO dismissed the arguments that USCIS could not apply the rule and said yes it can.

 

What I am trying to say is, on the chance that the issues does come up during your interview you need to be ready to explain why she did not misrep upon entry (which it sounds like you already have a timeline and an explanation as to why it was not misrep).

[Crazy Cat 39,192]

5 minutes ago, josue818 said:

What I am trying to say is, on the chance that the issues does come up during your interview you need to be ready to explain why she did not misrep upon entry (which it sounds like you already have a timeline and an explanation as to why it was not misrep).

What are the chances that the subject will even arise during the AOS interview?  I have heard of only one case in which that happened....and it was due to possible specific misrepresentation by an immigrant which had occurred during a secondary interview at POE.  I have heard of no other cases where intent was even mentioned.  There is no reason for a person to wait until after 90 days to apply for adjustment.  How would waiting 90 days change a person's intent from 3 months earlier?

[josue818 20]

2 minutes ago, missileman said:

What are the chances that the subject will even arise during the AOS interview?  I have heard of only one case in which that happened....and it was due to possible specific misrepresentation by an immigrant which had occurred during a secondary interview at POE.  I have heard of no other cases where intent was even mentioned.  There is no reason for a person to wait until after 90 days to apply for adjustment.  How would waiting 90 days change a person's intent from 3 months earlier?

I never said the chances were high, but a chance is a chance no matter how slim. Hence I also said it looks like OP already has an explanation in case an officer was to ask spouse about misrep. Additionally, whether the marriage toook place within 90 days matters because the DOS rule creates a presumption. Which like I said can be overcome. (see below). However, I don't think OP and spouse will be asked about it at the interview because it does not tend to happen. However, no one can say with certainty that it wont happen, because it can.

 

The 90-day rule subjects a nonimmigrant to a presumption of having made a willful material misrepresentation at the time of admission or application for a nonimmigrant visa when that nonimmigrant enters the United States and within 90 days engages in conduct inconsistent with his or her nonimmigrant status. The Foreign Affairs Manual at 9 FAM 302.9-4(B)(3) enumerates the following examples of inconsistent conduct:

• working without authorization
• enrolling in school when academic study is not authorized by one’s nonimmigrant status
• marrying a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States when one is in B or F status
• undertaking any other activity for which a change of status or adjustment of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change or adjustment.

When someone engages in conduct that triggers the presumption of material misrepresentation, it is that person’s burden to rebut the presumption.

[ourwildjourney 103]

26 minutes ago, josue818 said:

I don't think the attorney was 100% wrong as many have said here. I think the attorney OP spoke to might not have explained the 90 day rule to him thoroughly. Yes as some have explained the 90 day rule is a rule form the DOS and USCIS is not bound to follow it, BUT IT CAN. Just because USCIS is not bound by a rule from another agency it does not mean they cannot follow it. In fact when the 30/60 day rule was in place, USCIS did apply it in many cases and when people appealed the application of the rule to the AAO the AAO dismissed the arguments that USCIS could not apply the rule and said yes it can.

 

What I am trying to say is, on the chance that the issues does come up during your interview you need to be ready to explain why she did not misrep upon entry (which it sounds like you already have a timeline and an explanation as to why it was not misrep).

Thank you for this.  It makes sense.  Sounds like it is used as an indicator of intent.  We are the real deal with so much documentation and openness of how a visit to Arizona turned into California travel and then organic quality time with my family and then her family.  All we can do is tell the truth and show them who we are and how important she is to her stepdaughters and to me.  And bring lots of evidence of it and pray and hope for the best.  

[Boiler 43,397]

It reminds me of winning the Lottery, well unlike this situation somebody does win the lottery.

 

A finding of Misrepresentation is not made on a hunch, there has to be supportive evidence, also begs the question what happens next? Asked to file a waiver in country so apart from collecting a fee, which of course is offset against the work entailed, what would be the point for something that is considered a non issue?

[ourwildjourney 103]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

It reminds me of winning the Lottery, well unlike this situation somebody does win the lottery.

 

A finding of Misrepresentation is not made on a hunch, there has to be supportive evidence, also begs the question what happens next? Asked to file a waiver in country so apart from collecting a fee, which of course is offset against the work entailed, what would be the point for something that is considered a non issue?

I'm sorry.  I'm not following this one as clearly.  Are you saying why would they bother raising something since you can just get a waiver anyway?  Or am I missing what you are saying?

[Boiler 43,397]

First there has to be a case, not a hunch.

 

Obviously there are in Country findings requiring waivers but they are for serious issues, criminal history etc.

[ourwildjourney 103]

13 minutes ago, Boiler said:

First there has to be a case, not a hunch.

 

Obviously there are in Country findings requiring waivers but they are for serious issues, criminal history etc.

GOT IT!