njs051914

Just to recoup: OP is in the US right now. Unless he's lied to CBP, he's good to get married and file AOS.
Intent alone is NOT a reason to deny an immediate relative of a USC's AOS application.

Honestly if I "accepted" all advice I have received on here as gospel it's entirely possible that my husband never would have made it here.
Thankfully it's a lot easier to sort through good and bad advice after hanging around for a while!

I found this rather funny. I ignore advice all the time, especially from people I don't know on public forums.

^^ This ^^
If they did not lie to get the tourist visa, and they did not lie to CBP upon entry, then intent is not an issue. Even if there was intent, that alone is not a reason to deny AOS for a USC spouse.
OP> get married and file for AOS. Follow the link posted earlier in this thread for the AOS guide you need.
Matter of Cavazos > http://www.justice.g.../08/17/2750.pdf
...
(2) Notwithstanding evidence establishing preconceived intent, an application for adjustment
of status should as a general rule be granted in the exercise of discretion in
the case of an immediate relative or other specified alien who under Operations
Instruction 245.3(b) and 8 C.F.R. 242.5(a)(2) and (4) could be granted voluntary
departure until invited to appear before a United States consul to apply for an
immigrant visa.
(3) Where a finding of preconceived intent was the only negative factor cited by the
immigration judge in denying the respondent's application for adjustment of status as
the beneficiary of an approved immediate relative visa petition and no additional
adverse matters are apparent in the record, and where significant equities are
presented by the respondent's United States citizen wife and child, a grant of adjustment
of status is warranted as a matter of discretion

I don't think that the problem necessarily is that your opinion is different, it's that it's not relevant for the OP's case since the CBP officer already admitted him to the US and serves no purpose other than to convolute the situation and cause confusion about a path to adjustment that from what information was provided, is fully available to OP.
I think that while there are situations where opinions can be helpful on VJ, if a question or situation can be resolved with facts and procedure alone, it's not really helpful to share such opinions. This is especially true when they can border on inflammatory and/or accusatory.
I agree with Russ&Caro that you should try and learn from this, as it seems like a common issue.

Rather than delete all your posts, you could use this as a lesson learned.
One lesson I learned long ago on public forums is that if I jump in on every thread that I think I might have something valid to say, then I'm jumping in way, way, way too often. Here's my rule of thumb and I apply it in every forum I participate:
1. Reject the idea of posting on over 50% of the times that I think I might want to say something, before I even write 1 word.
2. Of the posts where I write 1 or more words, reject the idea of actually clicking submit on more than 50% of those posts.
This means I actually submit less than 25% of the posts where I initially think it would be a good idea to post.
Why do I throttle my posting production in this way? Because: 1) Others will respond with better posts, 2) Often I am wrong.

That's a nice opinion and all, but since OP already entered through their POE and the CBP office who had the actual authority to determine whether there was intent decided there wasn't so... Kind of a moot point that makes it seem like you just want to stir the pot.OP can file to Adjust. No one here has to agree with it personally, but your moral opinions or whatever really aren't relevant at all since that's the fact of the matter.

Isn't confessing and trying to do the right thing the optimal result for anyone who has ever broken the law, whether mistakenly or intentionally? I guess I'm just confused on what alternative you would prefer from the OP? Obviously the ideal would be no one would break laws ever, but that's not going to happen. She's here asking for advice on how to do things right this time around and you seem to be discouraging that. Super counter productive.Anyway OP, as others have mentioned, you will likely run into some trouble with the tourist visa, especially considering the factors (overstay, USC significant other, not having a job that ties you down). If you do want to file a K-1 or CR-1 I don't see it being a problem though. I would just caution however to make sure that you aren't rushing your relationship due to the inconvenience of not being able to see each other. I think that's something that happens to a lot of people on here, and while it can still work out in the end, it often can lead to rocky marriages and issues down the line.
Look into the options of him visiting you as well! The weather probably isn't much of a selling point seeing as he is from Texas, but I know I would not at all be opposed to a trip south now that it's getting colder.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/capitol-hill-meetings-donald-trump-reveals-his-top-priorities-n682211?cid=sm_fb_lastword

Bush is nothing like Trump. Not even after 9/11 was Bush even close to as openly anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant as Trump.The political stratification of the nation is also nothing like it was under Bush. The idealogies of both the left and right (more so the right) have deviated from the middle significantly in the past years. We are more polarized and more extreme at this point than in any other point in history.
The combination of both those things make for an entirely different playing field.

Are you trying to say that just because visa fees aren't in the federal budget that the federal government can't control it? Because that is insane and completely untrue.
Just look at 1980, where President Carter's sanctions against Iran effectively cancelled all visas for Iranian citizens. While a Muslim ban is a whole 'nother ballgame than sanctions against a particular country, the point is the President as well as the rest of the Federal Government has plenty of tools to control immigration.
I am also curious to what the letter you sent to the President was about. If it was a request for him to intervene in your specific case, then yes of course they are going to tell you the President has no control over that, because if they were in the business of looking into the immigration claims of anyone who asked, nothing else would get done.
As for committees, there does not need to be a specific committee on immigration for a bill relating to immigration to be constructed. Where on earth did you get that idea? Any member of Congress can put forward a bill for debate and consideration as long as he follows procedure and decorum rules. Only after the bill is put forward does it get sent to a specific committee in order to be further debated and drawn out. Now there already exists multiple committees where an immigration bill could be relevant (defense, foreign affairs, etc.) Even if there wasn't, it is not difficult at all to create a special committee dedicated solely to immigration.
You are also overlooking the fact that changes can exist even if no bill is put forward and even if no committee is created. The recent VWP changes disqualifying people who have nationality in or have recently visited certain countries was not passed on it's own as a bill (though there was one put forward to Congress with very similar guidelines) it was stuck in last minute to the omnibus spending bill.

Yes, he did.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/03/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-donald-trump-wants-undo-marri/

His wife's situation has absolutely no bearing.
Hypocrisy is not something that prevents politicians from changing laws. If he has a supportive Congress anything can happen. **edit AND SUPREME COURT
If you think that "backfire" is going to stop him, realize he received more backfire than any modern major-party candidate for many of the stances he has taken and was still the winner of the election.

I agree that it seems like many in this people in this thread don't understand how the federal government works, but I'm not necessarily sure I wouldn't discount you as one of them.
The checks and balances are significantly less effective when the ideologies of all 3 branches that are suppose to be checking each other line up. It's how the ACA was passed through during the brief time the Democrats had close to total control of the Congress.
Thankfully Trump does not have "full" control as the majority in the Senate looks like it will be slightly short of 60 seat majority needed to block filibusters, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have significantly more power than if the Senate would have swung blue like predicted.
Look I am really not trying to scare anyone here, but there are some deep misunderstandings here that I think are dangerous if not corrected or at least applied to criticism. The biggest thing I learned last night is that this time around we cannot rely on conventionally held beliefs on how politics work because so much of what Trump did was against those beliefs.
The checks and balances system, while historically effective over all, has never been tested in the sort of situation we are in now. Never has their been this level of polarization, or a candidate that has been so divisive, even within his own party.
If anyone takes anything from what I am trying to say here let it be this: We can no longer rely on traditional assumptions about how the political process in the US works, and that's coming from someone who has dedicated the majority of her higher education career into studying and interpreting that exact system. The territory we are entering now is new. Voting patterns that have been consistent for decades have been shattered. The very system and establishment that everyone is claiming will safeguard us from anything Trump tries to do is being criticized like never before. It's just not something we have ever seen, and most everyone from pundits to reporters to those in Academia will tell you the same thing.

Even if you can get the statement thrown out due to how it was taken, it really doesn't matter.
Fact is you did the drugs. Even if they don't have a sworn legal statement proving that anymore, suspicion is enough to ban you.
They ask about drugs at the medical stage, you would either need to tell the truth or lie, both which would place you back in the same place you are now.
It's unfortunate, I know, but your chances of immigrating are slim to none.

You are an extreme minority. There are people who have admitted to a single example of marijuana use decades in the past that still were denied or had their visas held until they could go through a period of drug tests.
The fact that you admitted to "hard" drug (in comparison to just marijuana) and the doctor shrugged it off is nothing short of miraculous in my opinion.
There are even those, particularly from the UK, who have had issues with just alcohol consumption.
**Edit** I'm confused, you say you admitted to one-time drug use but you say in a previous post there was more than one occasion?
"It was one time LSD use three years ago, and I also said I tried mushrooms and marijuana 5 years before."
So were you actually fully open and honest with the doctor?

I surely hope you weren't talking about me when referring to the "others in this thread", but looking at the amount of other posters I don't see how you could not be.
I don't really see anyone saying it's not a big deal, and I definitely wasn't. I mentioned that it may be a topic of discussion at the visa interview, and that it's good she is fully aware and understanding of it.

Do you have a link to that?
The forms don't even ask the USC to declare such offences (unless there are many, 3 I think).
The USC is already in the USA. They are an American. Why should USCIS deny a law abiding immigrant from entering the country, because they are engaged to someone who has a DUI? It makes no sense. They are only worried if it is a threat to the immigrant (as an alcoholic might be).

Can you provide a link for this example? A k-1 being denied for a single DUI in the past seems unlikely.
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/540519-if-the-petitioner-has-multiple-dui-will-it-affect-the-k1-visa/
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/533144-fiance-visa-petitioner-with-dwi/
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/284284-petitioner-got-dui-will-this-affect-cr-1-process/
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/459480-petitioners-prior-duiswill-they-affect-i-130/
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/566876-dui-problems/
I only went through the first page of search results, but seems as if all of those posters were approved just fine. Some were for CR-1/IR-1, many for K-1.

People are not getting dumber.
Common sense is about as widely distributed as it has always been.
There is nothing wrong with the next generation --> people optimize in the environment in which they live.
The only anomaly in the age old truths is the fairy tale existence the USA has enjoyed since World War II - now slowly coming to an end.

Exactly. People have always complained about how future generations are getting worse but in the end things stay relatively the same.
We've had warning reminding people not taking baths with your hair dryer and that candles may be flammable for decades.
Personally, I find the line of thinking that the world around you is dumbing down while your own common sense is becoming a rarity to be slightly narcissistic.

Well hm. I remember when I went to visit my fiance's family I explained the K-1 visa and the response was like "Oh so like 90-day fiance?"
I personally had no idea what she was talking about but of course wanting to fit in with my future in laws I just laughed nervously and said oh yeah. Whoops.
It doesn't actually bother me too much though. If people are actually going to take something that is clearly a sensationalized version of reality and apply judgement based off that to me and my relationship then it seems like they are the ones with the problem.
It's like assuming everyone from New Jersey is like the people from Jersey Shore. I would think most people are smart enough to separate a television show from reality.

Whenever anyone asks me about the show or my non citizen husband I take it as an opportunity to educate. I don't let their ignorance upset me. I explain to them how the system really works. Many are very surprised and have a whole different attitude by the time I finish.
I don't take the content of what's aired on TV to heart. I know my relationship is real. People will always have their own opinion and make their own assumptions. I just don't view it that seriously. It's entertainment just like anything else on TV. Remind people it's not a documentary.

It's reality TV. Not meant to be taken so seriously. I would hope most Americans know by now that "reality TV" has very little reality in it.

It's very badly researched by the production staff. It makes better television to say they have 90 days to decide if they want to marry or not when in reality a K-1 visa holder has 90 days to organise a legal wedding to the person they decided to marry before they even filed the paperwork. It's not a "try before you buy" visa.
Interesting that the premise mentions that the alien fiances are seeing the USA for the very first time. Again, it makes better television if the immigrant has never been on a plane before, never left their grandmother's house in an impoverished village in some remote mountains thousands of miles from the USA. When the reality is that many K-1 applicants (and I am assuming you fall into this category) have visited the country numerous times to see their loved one. Some even met when the alien was studying or working in the USA.
It's not meant to be informative of the process. It's meant to be shock TV.
It is frustrating for those who have dealt with immigration procedures to have the ordeal trivialised in this way. But what else do we expect from TLC?