kitkat1

KitKat can now retire!

And that's exactly what I'm gonna do. So for anyone who is still around from the nightmare days of IMBRA or who filed along with me (Allie, Alejandra, Emma, Monica, etc), our waiver was approved and we are finally going home to get married.

I've pretty much stopped posting here since most of the K1s are finished (along with my ever-increasing discontent with this site, how it's run and the wealth of misinformation and nastiness that abounds). But of course that doesn't include any of my fellow Mexico filers. It's been great going through this with all of you.

Buena suerte a todos y adios!

WOW the.ronin -- that is amazing and helpful information - those who follow will no doubt feel so much more prepared after reading everything you posted. Great work and congrats!

BTW, what's CDJ 401? Never heard of that before!!

p.s. why would the CO ask about a wedding ring when you're not yet married? Engagement ring perhaps? That question (either) suprised me!

That because I am new, as someone put it, that must mean that my opinion or knowledge base must be small and infinite.

No one ever said that - only that the personal attacks you posted were especially shocking given that they came from a newbie.

(If you don't think you personally attacked me, just read D's thread with YOUR quotes.

Have fun - I'm outta here.

who decides what is the correct information though?

we just give information that we have from our personal experiences (like I mentioned earlier) and information we might have done research on but it all should still be taken with a grain of salt...

I think it is pretty dangerous to take one person's answers as fact....regardless of who that person is...

i don't want to give off the wrong impression here because there are some pretty knowledgeable people on VJ and it is great that they want to help other people out...

No one can tell another person exactly what will happen in their individual case. But certainly people who have been through a particular process (i.e. waivers in Mexico in my case) can provide a whole lot more accurate information than people who know nothing about it. And along the same vein, if someone is continually misinterpreting the law or posting laws that don't apply, there are many people capable of pointing that out and correcting the error.

Just because someone tries to clarify errors doesn't give the OP the right to personally attack them - it's uncalled for and it's one of the reasons people like me will leave.

Seems to be the thread starter didn't exactly understand what was happening in the thread that offended and frustrated him so much.

No one personally attacked him or accused him of anything - the thread in question was filled with misinformation so several VJ members tried to point that out and clarify. That's what a forum like this is ABOUT.

And there have been many discussions here about people posting information as "fact" when it isn't. It's not at all that people can't feel comfortable asking questions -- it's that it's not OK for people to post things that are not true, as if they were. That's why so many times posters are asked to say things like "I believe" of "I've been told" rather than posting something that are not sure is true.

And obviously it's not at all about trying to convince unknown internet users that one person knows more than another -- it's about trying to provide accurate information to people going through the process.

For me, that's all I've ever tried to do here for the past year and a half -- help to provide accurate information which includes correcting mistakes. And I HAVE NEVER been told I have a "holier than thou attitude", that I should "get a life" or been treated as rudely as the OP treated me.

Perhaps that's why the thread was locked -- so he couldn't go down that road again and post more personal attacks . . . and will most definitely be the reason why I stop posting on VJ - I can't see any reason for me to do continue being so helpful and to be treated so rudely.

sk28, you don't get it. You're quoting information that is not applicable and does not pertain to USCIS.

The EAD stamp is only valid as long as the I-94 isn't it? I'm not sure what you gain by getting a temp. stamp.

Temp EADS are valid for 3 months. Many people work through a temp agency or at a temp job for that time while waiting for the actual EAD card. It's an opportunity to make some money and have something to do rather than sitting in limbo waiting since there is no way to realistically know if the EAD is going to come in 3 months or longer.

I was wondering if anyone had done this (again, my apologies if this topic has been covered), but has anyone ever gone out of their way to get a flight through JFK so the fiancé could get a temporary EAD? My fiancé is from western Canada (a few hours from Vancouver to be exact) and I want him to get a temporary EAD, but the problem is None of the average flights from western Canada to Ohio come through New York, since it not along the way. I was wondering if people have purchased multiple sets of flights (like one to JFK and then a later flight on another ticket) or how one would go about "building" a flight in order to get the temporary EAD. Thanks so much guys!

That's what we plan to do. I've been looking at multi-city flights on different airlines - sometimes it's cheaper if it's all one ticket, sometimes if they are completely separate tickets. We'll end up spending one night near JFK.

1) You are implying that you personally only provide accurate information. You're not a lawyer therefore I"m guessing that sometimes, you slip up too and add your opinion instead of 100% fact.

Nope - I never implied that I am the only one providing accurate information - only that this thread is filled with misinformation.

2) Does it offend me that you keep going ON AND ON AND ON about misinformation? No. It's ANNOYING. (ie. move on and get over it)

I am responding to your posts going on and on and on about misinformation. You're annoying, especially for a newbie. You get over it and I'll put you on ignore.

The problem is that you will have harder time of proving your intent if you file closer to your entrance in US.

Again, wholly unsubstantiated claim - no truth whatsoever.

I don't know if she had permission from the US goverment to work or not.

She didn't have permission to work - B2 visitors are not authorized to work and it's a violation of her visa. But given that she is now married to a USC, it will most likely be forgiven.

http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0940063N.pdf

9 FAM 40.63 N4.7-1 Applying 30/60 Day Rule When Alien Violates Status

(TL:VISA-313; 08-27-2001)

a. The consular officer should apply the 30/60-day rule if an alien

states on his or her application for a B-2 visa, or informs an immigration officer

at the port of entry, that the purpose of his or her visit is tourism, or to

visit relatives, etc., and then violates such status by:(1) Actively seeking unauthorized employment and, subsequently, becomes

engaged in such employment;

(2) Enrolling in a program of academic study without the benefit of the

appropriate change of status;

(3) Marrying and takes up permanent residence, or

(4) Undertakes any other activity for which a change of status or an adjustment

of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change

or adjustment.

Note the words: "The Consular officer should apply....". This is not something applied by a USCIS officer at an AOS interview.

Note that FAM directives do not equal law.

This is a STATE DEPARTMENT directive regarding whether or not an advisory opinion is required to support a fraud or misrepresentation finding.

No reason to report anything to USCIS - they would never match it up to your file anyway. When it's time for the interview in CDJ, you will provide up-to-date information regarding your job in the form of a letter from your current employer, paystubs, etc. It's not unusual for a job change to take place during processing - not a big deal.

The up to date job information will be in your supporting documents to the I-134. No need to deal with any of it until then. An employer letter could be part of that but is not required. I-134 asks you to state your current occupation and annual income. It is customary to offer tax transcripts and pay stubs to support the statement of current income.

Ciudad Juarez doesn't use the I-134. Therefore an employer letter is a rather important piece of proof for most people.

I understand what you are saying. But again, then why be here? To go on about how "it's just not the same here anymore" is kind of well....*yawn* As this site becomes more popular, the more people will be on here with limited information. You just have to accept it. There is no point in pointing it out numerous times.

I'm not going to go and say to someone, "Well I am more of an expert than you on the marriage based 485 because I did it..." because really, even though I did it i only know so much myself. However, I'm going to try to provide people with what I know to the best of my knowledge if the topic interests me. I'm sure I say some things here that aren't really true but I can learn from people who can set me straight.

Personally, people rolling their eyes at information that might not be true is just as annoying as the misinformation itself.

Just food for thought

What does the fact that I'm still here on VJ helping provide accurate information having anything to do with it? Does it offend you that I mention that this problem with mis-information did not exist in the past and that it's obviously a big problem for the forum in general now more than before? There sure as hell is a point in pointing it out -- it helps other people to realize that much of what they see here is actually incorrect. Sure people says things that they believe to be true and find themselves corrected -- that's how they learn. And obviously some people don't learn or retain anything after having gone through any particular process so they don't end up being experts. But as has been discussed here very often recently, the least people can do is say "I think this is the case . . . " rather than posting incorrect information as if it were indeed fact. And that's the root of the issue.

No reason to report anything to USCIS - they would never match it up to your file anyway. When it's time for the interview in CDJ, you will provide up-to-date information regarding your job in the form of a letter from your current employer, paystubs, etc. It's not unusual for a job change to take place during processing - not a big deal.

How many people are going to blab on about misinformation? boo-hoo. It's an immigration forum with thousands of people on it. If you take any advice off this forum at face value and complete FACT, and then follow it, you are nothing but a fool. No one can stop people from saying anything on here because it's the internet. Furthermore, what makes any of you such experts more than the next guy? When it comes to some peoples specific situations, all we can do as posters is speculate. If you don't like speculation and discussion and the possibility of MISINFORMATION, then why are you on an internet forum about immigration?

Obviously anyone who is stupid enough to rely only on information on a forum is well, stupid. But we can certainly do our best to provide accurate, proven information rather than simply posting garbage (which is normal here on VJ these days but didn't used to be).

What makes any of us experts more than the next guy? Well someone who entered on a B2 and adjusted their status surely knows a tad more about what really happened in their case than someone who has never been through it and it just spouting lies here (i.e. this gem of #######: "People that have B1/B2 or enter VWP and wait for 90 days can get married with out getting K-1".

Or for example since I personally have been through the waiver process myself and have done a ton of research and have a wealth of personal knowledge based on my experience, yes, I am more qualifed than someone who has NOT been through it to provide accurate advice.

Bottom line - common sense would tell anyone to speak to a qualified attorney. Common sense would also tell people here to stop posting things are not true . . . but that kind of common sense doesn't exist here anymore.

Again, I could not find anything in what you posted about the "30/60/90" day rule. Again if it doesn't apply to K1s entering on a tourist visa and attempting to adjust, what's the point? Again, this has been discussed and discussed here and has been proven to be nothing more than a directive. Think what you want to think -- but if you do a little searching you'll see that this is not a RULE applied by USCIS.

Look on the bright side -- at least you have an option to even enter the US without a waiver having been approved. The majority of people who have to file waivers definitely do not have this option and are forced to remain outside the US (and usually separated from their SO for a long, long time).

Correction. It's ok to enter on the B2 and marry you. Marriage isn't the issue.

Since the OP made it clear that he is asking about entering the US on a B2 with intent to marry and remain in the US, it is an issue because he is talking about her STAYING in the US - not going home and filing for the correct visa.

Would it be easier for her and her son to come back here with their B2, we get married, apply for AOS and enroll her and her in son in the classes

I couldn't find whatever part you we attempting to point out.

The case is from 1975 - not exactly current information.

If it doesn't apply to K1s, what makes it relevant to the discussion of entry on a tourist visa?

The 30/60/90 day rule has been discussed here again and again and again. I don't feel searching for it now but the exact source of where it comes from was posted and it was made very clear that it was nothing more than a directive (I believe from the state department) and was not related in any way to AOS K1 cases.

http://www.visacentral.net/I601Memo.pdf

Due to the lengthy processing time for appeals (can be 18 months or more) and low chance of success, consider refilling a de novo I-601 packet instead, especially if the client attempted the first I-601 pro se and it is clear that a better packet can be compiled.

The law is unclear on whether it is possible to file a de novo I-601 based on the same immigrant visa or K visa case. Some consulates will allow simply re-filing, but most will require starting over with a new visa petition. Even starting over with a new immigrant visa petition may get a decision faster than an appeal. Also, having to start over with a new visa petition allows time to put together a better waiver packet. The process will allow for several months, rather than the 30-60 days given for preparing an appeal

This thread should be closed -- WAY TOO MUCH MISINFORMATION (as usual)

Immigration law is federal - so unless you feel uncomfortable dealing with someone via phone and email, they do not have to be in your location.

Start by looking at the American Immigration Lawyers website. Cheap is not exactly a smart criteria but you may find some willing to do a free consult or a consult for around $100.

She doesn't even need a lawyer. Did she enter the US with intent to immigrate, has she said this to the Immigration officer at the border? “I am entering US because I want to immigrate to US”. This would be intent to immigrate and this intent makes you inadmissible. Intent to marry will not make you inadmissible to US. She can get married and go back file for K-3. She can wait for 90 days and get married and adjust in US. This would not trigger 30/60/90 day rule. K-1 has been made for fiancés that have decided to get married in 90 days after admission to US. If someone has a B1/B2 visa and the only purpose to obtain B1/B2 was to immigrate to US this is considered visa fraud but hard to prove if 30/60/90 day rule is observed. In case that you got B1 fly In US and get married next day you Immigration petition will be denied and you will go back to your country have to file for K-3 and doe everything from beginning. People that have B1/B2 or enter VWP and wait for 90 days can get married with out getting K-1.

And here we go again.

1) If her intent was to MARRY AND REMAIN IN THE US -- that means NOT return home and file for the correct visa, she had intent.

2) K1 is not made for fiances who have decided to get married in 90 days in the US. K1s OBLIGATE the petitioner and beneficiary to marry within 90 days. Otherwise the beneficiary has to leave the country.

3) There is no 30/60/90 day rule - it's a myth perpetuated by lawyers based on a directive a long long time ago.

4)

In case that you got B1 fly In US and get married next day you Immigration petition will be denied and you will go back to your country have to file for K-3

5)

People that have B1/B2 or enter VWP and wait for 90 days can get married with out getting K-1

WRONG. It all depends on whether or not they had intent. If this were true, no one would file for the appropriate visa if they could enter on VWP or a B2!

And FBI print request is for YOUR knowledge - nothing more. It's not something you can provide to USCIS to move the case along.

Thanks for the information.

It seems to me that doing AOS with a B2 is possible but could create a headache later and a possible risk of losing your $1000 fee. Any other people have success stories doing it this way?

Also anyone know if you can still travel freely with your B2 while awaiting the K1 interview?

Thanks

Her K1 interview will not be in Monterrey - Ciudad Juarez is the only consulate in Mexico that processes immigrant visas. Start by reading the Fiance Visa information on the Ciudad Juarez website. Also have a look at that Juarez thread in the Foreign Embassy Forum - everything you could possibly need to know is there.

AOS on a B2 is more than a headache - if she enters the US with the intention of marrying you she will be violating the terms of her visa. K1s exist for fiances to come to the US, marry and live. I would do it the right way. She may have issues at the border while traveling on a B2 - she needs to be prepared with a pile of evidence proving her ties to Mexico and her non-immigrant intent.

I am filling the I-130 for my wife who moved to the US from Mexico. She entered the US as a visitor in 2005 and never returned back to Mexico. She does not have the original I-94 but does have a Mexican Passport showing the entry date. Will the lack of an I-94 number create a problem in the application. Please advice soon....

Thanks.

Vic

Not sure if not having the original I-94 will matter or not - hopefully someone else will chime in.

But are you aware that she is currently illegally present in the US? I would have a chat with a qualified attorney.