grrrrreat

Im brand new to this so forgive me if there are already topics on this! I just got married to my boyfriend fiance of 2 years and we were wondering where to begin with the whole green card process? I am very worried about it as my husband is in quite alot of debt and hasnt paid his taxes in awhile. is it even possible for me to get my greencard with these problems or will we have to get someone else to sponsor me? One other thing, i have been here out of status for 3 years, i need to fly to the east coast in a few months and then back to California. I will have a new passport to the one i entered into the usa on. Is it safe to fly domestically or will i have to get there another way?

hope this all makes sense, thanks in advance!

The process is called adjusting status. For help, read the Step-by-Step Guide on How to File an I-130 for a Spouse Inside the US http://www.visajourney.com/content/i130guide2.

U.S. Citizen spouses always have to sponsor their alien spouses and file Form I-864, even if they do not have sufficient income or assets to qualify as sponsor, in which case an additional person also must sponsor and file Form I-864. A requirement of Form I-864 is that the sponsor must have filed income tax returns for the previous three years. So, you need to get your husband to focus on doing that if he has not done so. You should note that he should file tax returns even if he can't afford to pay what is due now. In any event, that is preferably in the long run to ignoring the problem. Assuming you can find another sponsor, his failure to pay taxes will not prevent you from adjusting status, but his failure even to submit tax returns will.

Being out of status will not prevent you from adjusting status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen and it doesn't have anything to do with flying domestically, as long as you stay within the United States. It doesn't matter what ID you show to fly domestically either, as long as it's current and valid.

Actually the type of person that looks for parallel solutions to a problem, namely my wife wanting to see her son. I couldn't petition for him because he was barely over 21. Perhaps bad advice on her not petitioning for him when she became a LPR, was strongly advised to wait until she became a US citizen as the wait would have been shorter. This wait is going on for five years now.

I edited out the rest of your message, in which you seem to blame everyone under the sun for what is a crappy situation. The bottom line is you got bad advice, and you acted on it. Assuming that you were not eligible to petition for your own step-son because of his age, your wife should have petitioned for him when she first became an LPR. The difference in wait times for adult sons of LPRs and citizens is relatively small. In any event, once your wife became a USC, she would have been able to upgrade the petition to the higher priority visa category and keep the priority date she had already obtained. Unfortunately, since you didn't do that, you lost out on a few years of priority that could have helped the petition become current sooner.

The bottom line is you should blame the person who gave you bad advice and yourself for taking it. It can't be fixed or changed now, so try to focus on better times to come and making a good home for your son when the visa is granted, instead of blaming innocent children who are in the U.S. without documentation through no fault of their own, and who have nothing to do with your circumstances.

Hi everyone! I had my medical exam at St.Luke's last April 22-23, 2013. I had 4 shots of vaccines on the second day: HepaB, TDap, MMR and Varicella. But I'm confused about their follow-ups/second doses? Can I just have them here in our province in Tarlac by our private doctor, if yes, will it be accepted by the USCIS? or I need to go back to St.Luke's for it, and if so, does it have an additional charge? I'm thinking that its better to have my follow-up doses than having it in U.S. (much cheaper I think).

Anyone who have an idea? Thank you.

You aren't required to complete the vaccination series to become medically cleared. Because the follow-ups doses need to be done several months apart, there is a blanket waiver for the follow-up doses, as long as the first shot is given to you at the exam.

Ummm what? That's why I'M saying. You said the second part, about K1's having to be conditional first "is probably wrong". I was showing you the appropriate section of the INA that states that it's NOT wrong and that they MUST be 2 year first... If you didn't mean to say that not all K1's should be conditional first, then fair enough, but that's how your post reads.

On re-reading your post it's the whole K1 issue that's confusing. You MUST AOS based on our K1 petitioner if you're here on a K1, so the second part about that person AOSing based on that marriage having to be conditional is moot.

Not all K1s should have to be conditional first. K1s who have been married for more than two years should not have to be conditional first.

K1s who have not been married for two years have to be conditional first. No K1 can adjust based on another relationship.

Please have a read of the links above where the appropriate section of the INA is mentioned about the "conditional" issue for K1 adjusters.

Thanks I've read the INA and the court decisions that interpret it, and I'm just letting you know that at least one court of appeals says that all K1 adjusters have to become conditional residents no matter what.

You are greatly over-thinking this.

1a) There is only one method for him to adjust status and that is to get married and then filing the I-130/AOS package. It doesn't matter if you marry in a simple JOP wedding or have a grandiose white wedding, the only thing that does matter is that is is legally binding.

b) There is no legal obligation to live together either prior to being married or after you are married. Simply cite your traditional religious reasons as you have done and then propose a time-lime of sorts to establish such a residence together. This is perfectly acceptable. Remember, that simply living together is only ONE way to show a bona-fide marriage, there are many others.

2) Currently the I-130/AOS package is taking around 90 days to adjudicate, but it can take longer if you receive an RFE or processing times slow down. His EAD and AP should take around 60 days to be issued. Once he has his AP in hand, he can then leave the U.S. and re-enter without issue, just remember to return in time for the interview.

3) You can file tomorrow if you wish.

4) The only immigration attorneys that should be consulted are those that are AILA approved.

Sorry I have a couple quibbles. I think you're underthinking things a bit.

First, I don't agree that not living together after marriage isn't a problem. It doesn't guarantee a rejection, but it's a big red flag and it will need to be overcome with a lot of other evidence and a very good explanation.

Also, it's taking much much longer than 90 days to adjudicate adjustment of status applications for new I-130s--more like 5-6 months. It's taking longer than 60 days for AP as well--more like 90 days (where are you getting your dates from?)

They can't file tomorrow because it's unlikely they could get a license, get married, and collect bona fide evidence. I understand your point is that there's no definite time limit, but it's a little more difficult than you suggest. If they file on the same day that they get a license, don't have good bona fide evidence, and aren't living together, I predict a rejection.

I know but if you never heard of it you might think that a confidential marriage enjoys the same secrecy as a confidential settlement in court...

But you can't lie about whether the settlement exists just because it was deemed confidential. Confidential marriage is special to California, and it merely allows celebrities to get a license without having their personal details made public. It doesn't keep the fact that the marriage happened confidential.

Typically a K-1 gets married within 90 days of entry, and files AOS immediately. Because they are married less than 2 years, they always get the 2 year card.

If they wait longer than 90 days to get married, they invalidate the K-1 visa and begin a period of overstay, and at that point must file an I-130 petition alongside the normal I-485 etc, even if they only waited until day 93 to get married instead of inside the required 90 day time frame. If they get married outside the 90 days, and wait until nearly 2 years after their wedding to begin the process to adjust status, they will get the 10 year card, but they will have been out of status the entire 2 years they waited.

Just clarifying, because I got a little confused myself reading that.

There's a terrible case about a K-1 entrant who ended up applying to adjust status based on another relationship, not marriage to the fiancee who petitioned for the K-1 (I can't remember if it was the person's child or the person had married a different spouse). The court read the rules to say that the K-1 could only adjust based on marriage to the fiancee. That part is probably right. They also stated, however, that the person had to adjust to conditional resident first. That part is probably wrong.

As you note, if the alien waits more than two years to file a new I-130 and I-485, they'll get a 10-year permanent resident card, not a conditional one. Technically under the rules as explained by the court, even that person would need to first adjust to conditional resident. But that person couldn't be a conditional resident because they had been married for more than two years! It's a strange dilemma and it looks like USCIS has decided to obey the first part (you have to adjust based on marriage to the K-1 fiancee), but not the second (you have to adjust first to conditional resident).

They likely wanted a copy of your visa and SSN for other purposes, since neither of those documents can be used to prove lawful entry.

A visa is just a document used to give a person permission to seek entry into a country-- it doesn't prove that the person used the visa to actually enter the country.

A SSN has nothing to do with immigration.

A visa does actually provide evidence of lawful entry, although it's circumstantial. If someone has a valid visa, it is far more likely that they used it to enter lawfully as opposed to entering without inspection.

A similar rule applies to citizens of VWP countries and Canadians. Because these individuals' passports secure them lawful entry, its very unlikely that they would have snuck across the border. As a result, a passport can help prove lawful entry for these folks.

Bottom line is that OP should send a copy of her I-94 and a copy of her entire passport including the visa and any entry stamps.

Glad your entry worked out okay. Thanks for the story and the information. We are definitely not going to pass the 1 year mark, and unsure if we will pass the 6 month mark, likely not. I guess we will just try our best. The only thing is I have little connections to the U.S, apart from being enrolled in a university there and having a U.S. bank account. Is this type of documentation you mentioned necessary or just "recommended"? My wife, on the other hand, has absolutely no connection to the U.S., as she has only been there for 3 weeks visiting, er, staying in touch with family.

Yes that's the evidence we're referring to. The previous poster accurately summarized the situation and what you need to do.

And to answer your question, yes, if you did not intend to establish permanent residence in the U.S. when you entered several months ago it would have been far better to delay issuance of your immigrant visa until you were ready to immigrate.

Maybe someone could elaborate, I still feel unsure.

Considering the following timeline below, when would we have to enter the United States? (We will have one-way plane tickets and all our belongings, it would be a permanent move):

October, 2011 - Passport with Visa received.

January, 2012 - Entered the US for the first time, although only visiting.

February 25th, 2012 - Left the US

April, 2012 - Received Green Card

September/October 2012 - Planning to make final move to the US.

Would we encounter problems trying to enter in September/October?

It's possible you will, but probably unlikely if you return within six months. September will be 5 months, but October is 6 months. If it's above 6 months, they may question you about your intent especially because you didn't stay for very long at all. Again, the bottom line is not length of time but your residence.

You need to stop saying that you were "only visiting" in January 2012. If you were only visiting in January and did not intend to make the U.S. your home then, you have already abandoned your permanent residence.

If this is the case I think EVERYONE (CBP, DHS, etc) needs to be on the same page with it. We can't have one department saying it's fine, and others not following it or not allowing people back in.

I also don't see if that does happen why an overstay case shouldn't be allowed to use it if their AP is approved(although clearly it would be iffy until we KNOW all departments are following the same rules).

Seems reasonable!

It is more than frowned upon, it is illegal

Off topic! All of this discussion is off topic! OP is a member of a military family; she should have an easy I-130 process. I provided the information she can use to contact USCIS Military Help Line but you are all drowning it out with this useless debate. Focus on helping OP.

Here is the military help line again! Get your I-130 ready and call them to inquire about how to expedite it. They do it all the time for military families.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7d1f8430256b3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=7d1f8430256b3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

You might have to be separated and you'll probably have to wait. It's a sacrifice you'll have to make if you want to live in the US with your husband. So get started ASAP.

I provided OP with the military help line to expedite her I-130, so she may not have to wait!

My husband is a us citizen, he is gettin out the army in september so we want go to the states and stay there, but we dont want to apply for immigrant visa over here because it would take too long. Can we apply for an immigrant visa once i entered the US on the visa waiver program? They can send me back to europe sayin that i need to apply for the visa over here? how long after i enter the us on VWP should we apply? we very unexperienced... whats the best thing to do?

thanks for help!

USCIS often expedites petitions for immigrant visas for U.S. citizens who live abroad and especially for members of the military. Start working on your form I-130 according to the Guides on this website, and then review this information for military families from USCIS. Call the number listed there and see what the process is: they list "bringing a spouse to the United States" as something that they help military members with.

Guide: http://www.visajourney.com/content/i130guide1

Military families: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=7d1f8430256b3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=7d1f8430256b3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

I think you're misinterpreting what "binding" means. BIA decisions are binding on DHS officers and immigration judges. This means, for example, if the BIA issues a decision granting an immigrant a stay of deportation then neither a DHS immigration officer or an immigration judge can overrule that decision and deport the immigrant. BIA decisions are subject to judicial review, so only a federal court can overrule a BIA decision. That doesn't mean that a BIA decision automatically results in a policy change at DHS. The overwhelming majority of BIA decisions don't address DHS policies, but address decisions made by immigration officers and judges in specific cases, and usually involve cases where the BIA believes the immigration officer or judge has misapplied their discretion or misinterpreted the law.

DHS has an obligation to review BIA cases to determine if they impact current policy, but they aren't bound to change their policy because of the decision. Most BIA decisions don't result in policy changes at DHS, primarily because most BIA decisions aren't contrary to DHS policy. Most BIA decisions are specific to only one case. The decisions that might have an impact on policy need to be reviewed by a director who has authority to change the policy.

The point is that a CBP officer working at an immigration counter in a US airport is not obligated in any way to stay current on BIA decisions. He has a policy manual, and he's expected to follow it until that manual is revised.

I understand your point and I wasn't advising anyone with an overstay to leave right now. I already had advised that people with potential overstays should seek AP and then revisit the situation if they need to leave before they have a Green Card. I also posted this to help individuals who were adjusting and who had departed and returned to the U.S., if application of the former overstay ban could prevent them from completing their adjustment of status, such as in the Arrabally case.

However, I do vigorously dispute that BIA decisions are not binding on immigration judges--and that was the statement I was responding to. Immigration judges are part of the DHS so in some sense BIA decisions are binding on DHS. Whether or not CBP has implemented it yet doesn't matter--I understand the risk that the CBP could deny someone entry but it's extremely misguided to suggest that this "doesn't change anything" as another OP did.

Your problem is in not understanding what a true democracy is...watch the video link I posted to get a more clear idea. The United States is NOT a representative democracy it is a representative republic.

I don't really care how the CIA defines the word...I look to the original interpretations and the founding fathers.

We've seen your sources and we don't agree with them. The first link you sent appears to have been a political blog and not a blog or website about history or political science. I would encourage you to broaden your readings a little bit and perhaps seek out sources that don't necessarily confirm but instead challenge your views.

I think you are also manufacturing a distinction that doesn't exist. Even if you could support the notion that the founding fathers didn't intend the constitution to provide pure democracy, our view (and the constitution) have changed since then. Certainly the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments (that resulted from the Civil War) brought about universal adult citizenship and suffrage--which is surely the hallmark of democracy. It is beyond clear that persons individually have rights but also that the body of citizens has the right to self-determination and majoritarian government. I think you think because the government is limited by the constitution it means that it's not a democracy--but even those limits could be changed through democratic process, like the constitutional amending process, which requires a direct vote of the people (in conventions or legislatures).

The video you posted is meaningless, politlcally-motivated tripe.

Should I send color copy?

Not necessary but if it makes them more legible why not.

I'm not sure that this really changes anything... yet.

There is no USCIS law that states it's okay yet. So someone who should get a ban leaves, do CBP know that they're supposed to let them enter? Or do they have to take it to the BIA in order to get their ban overturned? Or what?

I think until there is official word from USCIS no-one should risk leaving if they have 180 days or more of overstay. It's just not worth the stress. Esp when they should get the GC in around 6 months so if they already have that much overstay they've already been "stuck" in the US for a while, a little while longer won't kill them.

BIA decisions are binding on immigration judges--who are part of the USCIS. If CBP were to wrongfully deny entry, they could seek a hearing with an immigration judge.

It's a circular problem, to be certain.

My preferred method of dealing with it is to NOT issue AP to those who are NOT doing an AOS from a K-1 Visa.

I said nothing about entrapment or overstay bans. I'm leaning to NO AP whatsoever, unless you came in on a K-1 visa.

The 'why' is obvious - or it should be, to an immigration attorney. I know, I know, less paperwork for you? Less fees you can collect - but that's a side issue, and not my issue.

Those folk slinging through an AOS (non K-1s) really should sit out the process in the USA until the greencard is in hand. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it, regardless.

I think I am being insulted but I can't figure out why. And no it's not obvious why we'd deny advance parole to all adjustment applicants except K-1s.

---

fwiw, ONE case with the BIA does not change the law, or make something 'workable' with the INA, or adds new paragraphs to 9FAM.

The BIA decides what's workable with the INA and its decisions are binding on USCIS and the Department of Justice.

I don't think that's how Darnell meant his statement to be taken. USCIS has long had a policy to issue advance parole to people with sufficient overstay to trigger a ban if they left. Many well-meaning but uninformed intending immigrants left the US after receiving advance parole, only to be told they triggered a ban when they left. Whether they trigger a ban now depends on how informed the CBP officer is when they try to reenter, since many field offices don't move until a formal policy directive is issued by the director. Issuing advance parole to someone who might trigger a ban if they leave is irresponsible on the part of USCIS, and borders on government entrapment. Bold text warnings in the I-131 instructions are not sufficient. If someone might trigger a ban when they leave then USCIS shouldn't issue them advance parole. That's what Darnell meant. I agree with him.

But the whole point of this thread is that applicants who leave with advance parole do not incur overstay bans, even if they overstayed...so why can't USCIS issue them AP and let them leave the U.S. temporarily? There's no entrapment here because there are no overstay bans!

Yes that could be the reason cus it says on the letter that evidence should be legible.

Okay, just make sure all the information on the new copies are legible.

Ok, thanks, I know I sent it cus I make a copy of it,the first time, I will send it again

Maybe they weren't legible last time?

Bull #######. I am not missing the point.

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626

THAT is how the US government was designed to operate. The founding fathers were very much against so called 'democracy'. They are very similar and very different.

Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the PEOPLE. "WE the PEOPLE."

How about you focus on your opinion and I will stick to knowing the truth about US history and the way the county was formed. You can join those who try to manipulate the constitution into saying things it was never intended to say and I will stick to fighting you tooth and bone to maintain its integrirty.

As to the 'test' - I assure you I will be fine, not that it is any of your concern. I've never failed a test in my life, and that one will not be the first.

Sorry your view of U.S. history is not persuasive, and you're drawing a meaningless distinction where none exists. Your suggestion that I'm attacking the constitution because I disagree that the U.S. is not a "democracy" is ludicrous. The idea that you've figured out that the founders meant our country to be a "Republic" and not a democracy is not supported by history of that time, and it's certainly not supported by the two centuries of history that came after it. The citation you have doesn't mean what you think it means.

I am not sure who you're trying to lump me in with when you say I am "manipulating the constitution".

Quotes:

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.

Abraham Lincoln

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

Ronald Reagan

Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

We are living abroad only to sort things out here with her family before making the final move to the US. We are planning to be here for a few more months (3-4), then again, it depends on the requirements. After that we would be making a one-way and final move to the US. Thanks for the advice/information.

Thank you.

This link helped me a lot. It says:

"If it is determined, however, that you did not intend to make the United States your permanent home, you will be found to have abandoned your permanent resident status. A general guide used is whether you have been absent from the United States for more than a year. "

We do intent to make the US out permanent home, it's just taking a long time. We will have not been absent from the US for a year, as we returned from the US (it was a visit) in late February.

Am I safe taking this USCIS webpage as fact? As long as we don't spend a year outside the US since February and show strong motives/ties to the US upon entering for a permanent stay, should we be fine?

If at the end, she does not qualify to make the transition from the green card to citizenship, is another green card (i.e. another 3 years issued?)

Once again, thanks for much for the information and help.

Kind regards.

The year guideline is just a guideline, the bottom line is your residence. Good luck!

Uh uh...I pledge a legiance go the flag of the United States of American and to the REPUBLIC of which it stands.

The difference was important to the founding fathers...

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Check out this article and many others on the topic some time...

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

Back to topic....

You're completely missing the point. See the part about a democracy being when "sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation". That exactly describes the U.S. The U.S. is a republic and a democracy. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence provide that sovereign power resides in the "the people". See how a democracy is distinguished from a "monarchy, aristocracy or oligarchy"--the U.S. is none of those things.

That article isn't from a reputable source and it's not accurate.

If you tell your interviewer at your naturalization interview that the U.S. is not a democracy, you're going to fail that question.

No I haven't been issued parole, never left the USA. What you i send? Plan help cus i have my I-94 and passport with the visa I came, when I was inspected ,

Send a copy of your I-94, a copy of your passport and a copy of your visa.