Denied I-539 - Does this have any impact on a future CR-1?

[amm7s@mtmail.mtsu 1]

4 minutes ago, aaron2020 said:

Why bother coming here for help when all you are going to do is argue?

Why bother coming to offer help when all you are going to do is misread my posts and give incorrect information?

[aaron2020 11,651]

1 minute ago, amm7s@mtmail.mtsu said:

Why bother coming to offer help when all you are going to do is misread my posts and give incorrect information?

So, any information that is not what you want to hear is "incorrect information?"

Got it.

 

Good luck.  

 

[Rocio0010 5,560]

47 minutes ago, amm7s@mtmail.mtsu said:

Why bother coming to offer help when all you are going to do is misread my posts and give incorrect information?

With all due respect, they have given you very solid information. Bottom line is that she won’t be getting another B2, but you can pursue a CR-1. 
Why bother asking here if you already know the correct info?

[SalishSea 16,746]

3 hours ago, African Zealot said:

Not correct. More than a few people have subsequently been approved after a previous overstay. In her case it was before incurring a bar to entry.

 

With that said, the chances of subsequent approval plunge with an overstay regardless of the reason for the overstay. Her current visa is automatically voided. You can google that.

 

Original Poster,  your vigorous protestations here won’t change the facts, unfortunately. Overstaying is never good.

Very unlikely she would get another B visa with that overstay, regardless of “more than a few people” getting one.

 

And I don’t need to Google that the B2 was voided.....indeed, that’s what I’ve been telling the OP in this thread.

[retheem 553]

3 hours ago, amm7s@mtmail.mtsu said:

I'm not protesting. I am seeking clarification, and I am quoting things that I have read / heard, including directly from lawyers. Including lawyers just today who have told me that her tourist visa is not automatically revoked.

 

If seeking clarification is "vigorous protestation", then I really don't know what else to say.

 

Thank you for the information.

😂😂😂dude, that's a gone case. The ship sailed long time ago. She aint getting another B1 visa anytime soon. File for CR1 visa

[JKLSemicolon 327]

Re: the applicability of INA 222(g), here are the official links to the statutes being referenced. I feel it's always preferable to go to the source:

 

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1202&num=0&edition=prelim

 

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030201.html

 

Note: the second link took a while to find because the attorney website that OP provided mistyped the FAM citation.

 

It would appear that the situation OP describes falls under this scenario (copied from the second link, emphasis mine):

Quote

9 FAM 302.1-9  (U) Aliens Subject to INA 222(g)

9 FAM 302.1-9(A)  (U) Grounds

(CT:VISA-160;   08-19-2016)

(U) INA 222(g) renders void the visas of nonimmigrants who remain in the United States "beyond the period of stay authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”

9 FAM 302.1-9(B)  (U) Application

9 FAM 302.1-9(B)(1)  (U) In General

(CT:VISA-773;   05-03-2019)

a. (U) In General:  INA 222(g) applies only to aliens:

(1)  (U) Admitted on the basis of a NIV; and

(2)  (U) Who remained beyond the period of authorized stay (see 9 FAM 302.1-9(B)(1)).  Also, see Summary of INA 222(g) Scenarios for examples of when INA 222(g) would or would not apply at 9 FAM 302.1-9(B)(6) below.

c.  (U) Remaining Beyond Period Authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security: 

(1)  (U) In General: For the purposes of INA 222(g), an alien who entered the United States on an NIV will be considered to have overstayed his or her period of authorized stay if:

(a)  (U) The alien remained in the United States beyond the specific date stated on the Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record; or

(b)  (U) USCIS, an IJ, or the BIA has formally found that the alien has violated his or her status.

(2)  (U) Aliens Admitted Until Date Certain:  Aliens admitted on "B" visas and most other visa categories are granted a specified period of stay and must depart on or before the date specified on the Form I-94.  An alien who departs by the date indicated on the Form I-94 would not be ineligible under INA 222(g), unless the USCIS, an IJ, or the BIA actually makes a finding of a status violation before such departure. 

(3)  (U) Aliens Admitted for Duration of Stay:  Although most nonimmigrants are admitted to the United States for a specified period of time, some aliens are admitted for "duration of status."  An alien who has been admitted to the United States for "duration of status" is ineligible under INA 222(g) only if:

(a)  (U) USCIS finds a status violation while adjudicating a request for an immigration benefit; or

(b)  (U) An IJ finds a status violation in proceedings against the alien.  In determining whether INA 222(g) applies, your assessment of whether the alien did or did not maintain lawful status is irrelevant.

(4)  (U) Aliens with Pending Change of Status or Extension of Status Applications:   An alien is not ineligible under INA 222(g) even though the departure date on Form I-94, Arrival-Departure Record, passes, if:

(a)  (U) The alien files a timely application for extension of stay or for a change of status; and

(b)  (U) The application is subsequently approved.  In addition, if an alien departs after the date on the Form I-94 passes, but before his or her application for extension or change of status has been decided by USCIS, they must be subject to a blanket exemption from INA 222(g), if the application was filed in a "timely manner" and is "nonfrivolous" in nature.  You may consider an application nonfrivolous if it is not, on its face, a groundless excuse for the applicant to remain in the United States to engage in activities incompatible with his or her status.  Posts may be satisfied that an alien filed in a timely manner using evidence such as a record in USCIS Person Centric Query Service (PCQS) or the dated receipt or canceled check from USCIS for the payment of the application fee to extend or change status together with evidence of the expiration of the alien's legal status.

(c)  (U) Nonimmigrants admitted D/S (Duration of Stay) who leave the United States while the extension of stay or change of status application is pending, are not subject to INA 222(g), provided that no status violation was found that would have resulted in the termination of the period of stay authorized.  In addition, D/S nonimmigrants whose extension of stay or change of status applications were denied for reasons other than a status violation are not subject to INA 222(g).

 

Quote

9 FAM 302.1-9(B)(6)  (U) Summary of INA 222(g) Scenarios

Alien admitted until specified date; submits a timely and non-frivolous application for extension or change of status; departs U.S. after expiration of Form I-94, but before a decision on the Form I-94 extension/change of status application.

Not Subject [to INA 222(g)]

 

I am not a lawyer so I will not provide any interpretation of the above, just sharing source information.

[aaron2020 11,651]

6 minutes ago, JKLSemicolon said:

Re: the applicability of INA 222(g), here are the official links to the statutes being referenced. I feel it's always preferable to go to the source:

 

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1202&num=0&edition=prelim

 

https://fam.state.gov/FAM/09FAM/09FAM030201.html

 

Note: the second link took a while to find because the attorney website that OP provided mistyped the FAM citation.

 

It would appear that the situation OP describes falls under this scenario (copied from the second link, emphasis mine):

 

I am not a lawyer so I will not provide any interpretation of the above, just sharing source information.

Who has made the determination that the filing was non-frivolous?  People can determine that themselves?  How does the US Government determine whether the filing was frivolous or non-frivolous?  

Edited May 4, 2021 by aaron2020

[JKLSemicolon 327]

14 minutes ago, aaron2020 said:

Who has made the determination that the filing was non-frivolous?  People can determine that themselves?  How does the US Government determine whether the filing was frivolous or non-frivolous?  

I tried to edit my post to mention that point but the time has passed. That is the key question. And maybe that only applies in cases where the application was withdrawn upon leaving the country? Not sure.

 

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the other possibility is:

 

Quote

9 FAM 302.1-9(B)(6)  (U) Summary of INA 222(g) Scenarios

Alien admitted until specified date; applies in timely fashion for extension or change of status, remains in U.S. after date on I-94 and application is subsequently denied.

Subject [to INA 222(g)]

 

My main intention was to encourage OP and others to go directly to the source rather than relying on third-party websites for these matters.

Edited May 4, 2021 by JKLSemicolon

[African Zealot 1,452]

2 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

Very unlikely she would get another B visa with that overstay, regardless of “more than a few people” getting one.

 

And I don’t need to Google that the B2 was voided.....indeed, that’s what I’ve been telling the OP in this thread.

You can Bing it instead of Google 😁😂😁. That was for OP. Can’t stand being corrected on your emphatic statement that wouldn’t get another B visa I see.

Edited May 4, 2021 by African Zealot

[powerpuff 5,884]

 

4 hours ago, amm7s@mtmail.mtsu said:

Why bother coming to offer help when all you are going to do is misread my posts and give incorrect information?

The level of denial is through the roof.
 

here’s advice: ignore everything we said since we’re apparently giving you “incorrect information” and buy a ticket for your fiancé/wife for July and please let us know how that went. We’d love to hear it.

 

[SalishSea 16,746]

1 hour ago, African Zealot said:

You can Bing it instead of Google 😁😂😁. That was for OP. Can’t stand being corrected on your emphatic statement that wouldn’t get another B visa I see.

I don't mind being "corrected."

 

But I stand by my belief that she won't get another B visa:  unfortunately we may never hear back after a new application.

[Nitas_man 3,100]

14 hours ago, amm7s@mtmail.mtsu said:

Hey all, I'm wondering if anyone can give me some feedback or advice. I'm asking here because my fiance and I are planning on pursuing a CR-1 visa, and I am curious if this will impact her 1. coming back into the country on her B1 visa to visit and 2. getting approved for the CR-1 visa after we're married.

 

My fiance entered the United States on a valid multi entry tourist visa back in November 2019. She was scheduled to depart in February, but rescheduled it for March. Unfortunately, the COVID shutdowns happened and her flights back home to the Philippines were cancelled and she wasn't allowed to get back. Her I-9 was originally valid until May, but because she had multiple flights back home cancelled, she filed an I-539 for an extension in April.

 

She finally was able to get a flight back home, and departed in November 2020, less than 180 days past her I-9 expiration. We've been waiting to hear back about her case, and finally today she received a decision that her case was denied.

 

She has not yet received the note explaining why she was denied. We have been talking about having her come back over here in July on her visa for a visit. What could be the reasons for her denial? Is this denial going to harm those chances for her to come back? Will this impact our future pursuit of a CR-1 visa?

Answer:  

 

Chances of re-entry on a non-immigrant visa are slim to nil
 

This will not affect a CR1 but you’ll need to plan to marry outside the US

 

Way it is.  

 

 

[Adventine 3,187]

8 hours ago, powerpuff said:

 

The level of denial is through the roof.
 

 

 

I understand where OP is coming from: the facts are hard to accept because they have hugely negative implications.

 

To accept that the tourist visa is now void and that his fiancee overstayed, means that they now have to contend with the following situation:

 

The Philippines is still closed to most foreigners, as it has been for more than a year, with no end in sight.

The US Embassy in Manila has not yet resumed full operations. There is more than a year's worth of backlog that the Embassy needs to process, before his fiancee even gets a chance to have another tourist visa interview. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of applicants ahead in line.

 

it's not easy, but it is best to accept reality now and adjust plans accordingly.

 

A possible solution:

Marriage in a third country is possible, though it presents its own set of challenges. A VJ member recently did this in Costa Rica. There are details in the Philippines sub-forum about it.

 

 

 

[powerpuff 5,884]

20 minutes ago, Adventine said:

 

I understand where OP is coming from: the facts are hard to accept because they have hugely negative implications

I totally understand that. It’s hard to look the truth in the eyes. We’ve all been there. However, arguing with others by claiming they’re providing false information even though it’s taken directly from USCIS is very counterproductive to say the least. To add, unfortunately, his situation is not unique in this whole covid situation. Virtually the whole world cannot get a US tourist visa if they wanted to. And a lot of couples have to look for ways to marry in a third county. And they were successful. I’d advise OP to start researching for countries that would let in US and Filipino citizens. 
 

Edited May 4, 2021 by powerpuff

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

I can see this exception to ina222g supposedly exists. Yet we’ve also seen reports here of similar situations- and even one where the i539 got approved after leaving - where visas have been voided.
 

One of two things is almost certainly going to happen when she tries to visit on her existing visa:

 

1. CBP officer says sorry your visa is void

2. CBP officer says maybe your visa is not void but you overstayed by 6 months last time, sorry, you’re not coming back in

(the initial overstay may have been “justified” but many on this forum will know, citizens were able to get back to the Philippines long before Nov last year. So CbP will not be so sympathetic. Especially when it turns out boyfriend with plans of marriage is waiting. Especially because spending a year in the US and now coming back for more shows very little ties to home.)
 

Luckily there is no ban so no problem for a CR1 which realistically is the only way she enters the US in the next couple of years. 
 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by SusieQQQ