Captain Oates

I remember your post of your oath ceremony. That was one of the most humorous things I have read.

As for your friend, if she didn't lie at POE then she'll be fine. POE determined she didn't have immigrant intent.

heck Harpa you have me tagged better than the NSA !

Now all I have to do is make sure I don't get on the SPONSOR hook or the FEES hook, coz they are both unemployed and penniless.

Venezuela to Wisconsin in February is going to be one huge shock because it is COLD and I mean aaarggghhh !

Making this post has made me realize how lucky I am to have all this stuff behind me.

Even if it "should be straightforward", the worry of what can go wrong, and the wait, is debiltating, and the letters "USCIS" still make me quiver

I am doing great as a USC nowadays, after a VERY bumpy start, so good luck to all

Intent by itself cannot be used to deny an AOS from a spouse of a USC. It is a negative factor, but not strong enough of a negative factor to overcome the overwhelmingly positive factor of being married to a USC. So, if she is in the US now, she can most likely adjust with no problem. As long as she was inspected at the border, and did not lie, it won't be a problem. What would be a problem is if she went in a separate line from her husband, and claimed she was a single woman travelling alone, or something. If she really quit her job and said she was employed to get in to the US, that would be a problem too.

Thanks Harpa... yes she will have make sure she doesn't say the wrong thing at the interview (or lie)

It seem to all hang on that

As an aside, we visited the UK recently and I joined the "others' queue as distict from the UK citizens because my USC wife was with me. I was using my UK passport..

I had great pleasure in saying to the officer "I came in this line because my wife is an alien" and I grinned

He turned to her and said "Shall I detain him " ?

The risk of being turned back at the border, and having to purchase a ticket back to the home country (and then possibly not being allowed to try to cross again without an immigrant visa for however long the border guard decides). Also, if there is misrepresentation, the possibility of being found out and deported and banned for life from the US. It IS fraud to enter the US on a nonimmigrant visa with the intent to immigrate, and the border guards can be pretty savvy on figuring out who is planning that. It's always best to do things honestly.

That makes sense Valerie

So I am believing that the main criteria is the risk of what happens at the border.

...they have overcome that hurdle and she got in

So now I guess, the danger lies in what happens at the AOS interview, and whether she says something that indicates that she never had the intent to go back.

Or if the interviewer picks upon some evidence such as she gave up her job in South America, let her apartment go, sold her furniture and closed her bank account etc etc etc

Never met the gal, but from all accounts she isnt a Nancy Grace, so she will have to be careful what she says. Which is why some people take their immigration lawyer to the interview ?

Is that a fair description of where they are now ?

It is usually better to start your own thread...but either way, the 2 important things here are:

1. Did she lie to the border guard when entering the US? Actually lie, not just omission.

2. Do they have a bonafide marriage?

Your opinion of intent does not matter. In fact, since she was allowed to enter, they have already determined she did not have intent. The only thing that could screw that up is if she materially misrepresented herself. If she did, and it would have caused them to not allow her to enter the US, then she has a big problem. Otherwise, I see no reason why she couldn't AOS.

I have been married a few years now so I am used to the concept that my opinions don't matter - and I am ok with that - chuckle

Interesting. If she had told the border guard that she was entering with her husband in order to take up residence, I think she would have been refused and therefore we can discount that and that only leaves ommission if anything. If ommission is ok then ok.

However, that leaves me thinking that if an EXISTING spouse with a tourist visa, can simply come in and adjust, then what is all the k3 /cr 1 stuff about. Why doesn't everyone do it ?

What thoughts ?

Hi guys - I beg your indulgence as I have query which naturally follows on from this case:

I have actually been right through this mill more than once with TWO fiance visas for me plus AOS plus AP and then finally CR1 to enter with green card status - and now I am Citizen yippee ! Dont ask - it was a start stop thing with us going back and forth.

Phew I say phew ! Been here since 2007 GC cr1 entry and a citizen since 2010.

I was so traumatized by the whole thing that my mind has erased most of what I learned so I beg your up to date info:

Here goes:

"Someone I know" got married in South America and brought his spouse here a few months ago on a Tourist Visa with intent to stay (in my opinion)

My understanding is that if they apply for AOS while they are both here, they could get in a big mess over whether she lied at the border

My advice to them would be for them to go back to South America and apply from there even though he may hit 'domicile' problems if he tries to sponsor.

Before I give this advice, I just wanted to check with the VJ people to see if there is any way she could do AOS succesfuly from the US

There are no extenuating circunmstances such as family illness etc

If not, should she file for a k3 before she returns for interview and stay as long as possible in the US while the k3 is processing ?

I did something slighty similar once as I arrived on VWP an applied for a K1 while here - then returned to the UK for interview

I reckon if she tries for AOS and it goes bad, it could be a total nightmare

thanks

Alan

It's been real. Know this: I loved each and every one of you, in some fashion or another.

Also, I'm really a 6ft tall dude named Sully living outside of Boston in my mom's basement. I guess I can reveal that now that the Apocalypse is nigh.

MAV...of the elms...here is my advice on political discourse in case I die and you live coz of your mayan blood

Strolling so gaily down Bowling Green,

This gay youth you might have seen;

Maginnis and I with a girl between,

But, oh! what a surprise.

I praised the Republicans frank and free,

Maginnis got angry quite speedily,

And in a moment be handed me

Two lovely black eyes.

Chorus.

Two lovely black eyes,

Oh! what a surprise;

Only for telling a man he was wrong,

Two lovely black eyes.

The next time I argued I thought it jest

To give the Republican's a rest;

So the merits of Henry George I pressed,

But, oh! what a surprise.

The man I had met was from Tammany true,

Nothing the workingmen right could do,

This was my share of that argument too,

Two lovely black eyes.-Chorus.

The moral you've caught, there is no doubt,

Never on politics rave or shout;

Leave it to others to fight it out,

If you would be wise.

Better by far it is to let

Republicans and Democrats alone, you bet,

Unless you are willing and anxious to get

Two lovely black eyes.-Chorus.

You'll be sorry tomorrow when the world ends. But we won't be around to say I told you so.

I have out-foxed the mayans - I set my computer time back a year and took it off auto daylight saving

I will be the only survivor

Why is anyone with an IQ over 50 so stupid, so lacking of initiative and critical thinking, to be unable to determine for themselves that the Mayans never said the world would end?

It's appalling. This stupid meme was started by new-age con artists. It isn't disgusting to me that people think the world will end. It is disgusting to see people falsely accrediting the meme to the Mayans - a people so advanced they could put forward a calendar with an incredible degree of accuracy that far into the future.

I think it's great - the Mormons came knocking on my door and I convinced them to give me everything they had

Wanna buy a briefcase and some shiny shoes ?

Each person has their own perspective. It seems to me to be quite different that you can't manufacture a new machine gun, but you can still manufacture a new semiautomatic rifle under a "ban". As I said before, the Bushmaster used in the CT tragedy was legal before the ban, and new Bushmasters will be legal after the ban. Remember, CT never ended the assault weapons ban, and the Bushmaster was legally purchased there. If people would be honest, the real goal is to ban semiautomatic weapons.

A magazine ban doesn't cut it. There are probably 25 million high capacity magazines in general circulation now. My local distributor had 150,000 last Friday and they are backordered now. If you look on line for PMAG 30 round, you will not find any available although the price has tripled. They are not serialized, and there is no record of individual purchaser. They sit on the counter, you pay cash and leave.

They can't define "assault weapon", except by appearance, and that to me is feel good legislation.

Totally agree

My supplier's website is swamped and wont work - when it does work, there is a banner that says go away we can't handle even phone calls

The UK allows ar-15's if they are modified to single shot and no mag can be inserted

any detachable mag semi auto rifle is bloody formidable whatever it looks like

I have three 30 round mags because her down the corridor in these apartments has pit bulls and I can't see well without glasses so I need to spray and pray

The spraying is ok but praying without laughing is always difficult for atheists

This I can't answer definitively. I know it partially hinges around the Miller case (one of the few rulings in history that limited the 2nd amendment)

Take everything I say from here with a grain of salt because it may be inaccurate - Charles might be better able to explain.

The miller case revolved around a shotgun that had been sawn off, the SCOTUS ruled it should be illegal because the firearm was not in regular use with the military. From there I think a precedent was set that Congress has the power to limit certain firearms.

Heller did revisit this case I believe and more narrowly defined it to banning the restriction of firearms in common civilian use.

Well AW's are certainly in common civilian use as 2 million were sold twixt 2000 and 2010 and a heck of a lot more before then

The lack of success of a challenge between 1994 and 2004 makes me think it would pass the test

A bit academic as these guns last forever (screw in a new barrel) and it won't be retrospective

I have a thousand slow rounds through mine and my life expectancy and the cat's is about the same and less than the barrel's

Any of the country's enemies who want to see massacres continue will not be disappointed

.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm

SUMMARY OF STATE AND FEDERAL MACHINE GUN LAWS

much, much, much more restrictive than the proposed AW ban

and yet constitutional

which was my point

Why do you keep mentioning machine guns? They are legal, from a Federal perspective. Any person who can legally buy a weapon, can buy a machine gun. If there are any restrictions they are only at the state level. Want to buy one, fill out the form 4, pay the $200 tax and go here: Class III purchase

AS I understand it Dave, the manufacture and sale to the public of new machine guns is banned in exactly the same way as the AW's are proposed to be banned

If the machine gun restriction is ok with the constitution then.....

Here is where you will find the most resistance, because of our history with the UK, the 2nd is untouchable. The violent crime in Chicago or any other high risk area won't be solved by guns, if you allowed more guns you will have more bodies. You need to start with education, then move on to jobs, break the cycle of violence.

If the UK promises not to attack the US, would the US start to relax on guns ?

After all, we did burn the white house down in 1812, many decades AFTER the 2nd ...didn't stop us

It did relax between 1994 and 2004 when the assault weapons ban was in.....

Perhaps Princess Diana gave them a warm fuzzy feeling at the time

anyway it's coming back...

Already ruled on by SCOTUS - unconstitutional.

I will have to look for that under "guns " "door locks" "gun cabinets" "access by children"

They need to clean up the streets, I hate seeing my young people act this way.

Obviously, any State laws have little relevance when guns can be obtained nation wide

Only Federal law can succeed - as in the case of machine guns

That is why President Obama is so important to this process

The UK's bill of rights is still in force (from 1689) and the right to bear arms has been largely circumvented by regulation which is the way to go

Making storage of guns so expensive that people gave them up was highly effective

Solid wood internal doors, 5 lever locks on doors, a dedicated alarm to the police station - it can be done without touching the stupid bloody 2nd

Yes, it is unfortunate there are so many guns in Chicago and black youth are paying a high price for it. Even more unfortunate is the fact that restricting them isn't going to do a thing to address the issue. People aren't going to just line up and hand over their illegal weapons. I guess it'll give the politicians warm fuzzies for awhile, and they can run around and say they did something to cater to their constiuents, but it in the end it wont solve anything.

It worked in Britain

The way the ruling was worded as with other rulings, if Chicago tries to be dicks about this and stick uber tight restrictions on guns, that city will be taken to court. The attorneys will make a small fortune and in the end Chicago will lose. If Chicago is smart (which they haven't shown to be yet) they won't chance it.

They did produce a wonderful President who will be able to organize gun safety legislation - and it will make difference eventually

I feel so sorry for their gun soaked city and the sooner they can be removed the better

I don't subscribe to the idea that black kids killing black kids does not matter

The Illinois AWB was struck down earlier this year actually. Gun Control advocates probably won't appeal it further because they don't want these laws getting to SCOTUS

AS of now...and look out for City Ordinances which are not preempted by the State

Gun laws in Illinois regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Illinois in the United States.[1][2]

Illinois does not issue licenses for the concealed carry of firearms, nor does it recognize licenses issued by other states. Illinois is the only state that does not allow concealed carry in some form. Open carry is also prohibited in most areas. When a firearm is being transported, it must be unloaded and enclosed in a case. On December 11, 2012, these blanket restrictions were struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, which gave the state 180 days to change its laws or appeal the decision.

To legally possess firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, issued by the state police. Non-residents who may legally possess firearms in their home state are exempt from this requirement. There is a waiting period to take possession after purchasing a firearm — 72 hours for a handgun, or 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun. Private sales are allowed, and are subject to these same requirements. Possession of automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles is prohibited.

Illinois does not have state preemption for gun laws, and some local governments have enacted ordinances that are more restrictive than those of the state.

And what has SCOTUS ruled since then?

That it was retrospectively unconstitutional ? I don't think so.

Machine guns can be messed with under the constitution and so can AW's

Have you seen the Illinois gun laws ? they are tough - and by city with no State pre-emption....

The 1994 to 2004 AW ban stood, there was no challenge from the NRA or anyone

The new ban will be the same and the NRA are in the foetal position already

You think their going to amend the US Constitution anytime soon? Ya right.

They didn't have to amend the constitution in 1994 when they banned AW's for 10 years

How did they do that ?

I bet that baffled the gunners

I'm sorry but you must have this country mistaken for the EU. No this is not the worthless EU and yes I do value the US Constitution. Unlike the worthless EU who stood by and watched Serbs cart away Bosnians for mass slaughter, unlike the worthless EU who stood by and watched Georgians get kicked out of their homes by Russian troops, unlike the worthless EU who stood by and watched on news while Serbs invaded three European countries the US has a different take on things.

Two world wars and the first world war was called by Europeans "The war to end all wars". After the Brits got on their knees like dogs and handed Hitler and Poland a third of Czechoslovakia they watched as Hitler ran roughshod over Europe and had to call in Churchill to clean up the mess.

You can have the EU and it's way of life, but again many of us here value the US Constitution along with our freedoms and rights. You want Europe then move there. Nobody is stopping you.

I am staying in the US because the majority of people think like me and not like you

I voted for President Obama and he won easily - did you ? Did you ?

Should a minority tell the majority to get out of the country ?

The democratic majority will have their way regarding guns, and the minority will obey the law or face the consequences

Funny that seeing how a large amount of those people you choose to call puss*es are the same people who served this country so others could enjoy the freedoms and democracy they have now.

That post of yours is just one more example of foot in mouth.

From those imperialistic Vietnamese ! We conquered them so we could be free. oh wait...they won ?

This older generation of gun nuts are the ones who set dogs on black people and beat them with sticks

Saints they were not

It is a twisted culture and needs to be pushed towards modernity

It happened when gays were no longer jailed or thrown out of the army

It happened when drink drive became unacceptable

Cultures can be changed

The gun culture can be changed

I thought Obama would get him deported before the election to avoid the awkward questions from the GOP but he didn't and they didn't seem to mention it.

wait .....I have had an idea..perhaps there are no awkward questions !

hah ! I am the first one to think of that

Perhaps the USCIS didn't want any questions about how they had handled the case for 50 years and decided to re-open it in case Fox and Rupert Murdoch came sniffing and alleged something

That would sound sensible

I agree with you clerical errors do happen, we all are humans and we make mistakes.

Last time I went to DMV it were kids issuing DL and I was like training and they told me they had some internship program for some weeks and there was no one supervising them, unless they had question and were checking with regular employee.

Now when the issue has become public and everyone is aware, press questioned RM authorities, it would be expected that they go and fix the error.

Captain Oates – I am not asking why he was not deported under Obama administration, I am asking once the deportation order was in place why was the case being re-opened?

There is difference between case being re-opened and why he was not deported, I am sure there are thousands of ppl that have deportation order and continue to live in US.

oh ok ....you think O wanted him deported then and re-opened the case....

does that make O a goody or a baddy ?

confused