DelcoCouple

Pending Adjustment

No you do not have an alien #

Shame on you introducing common sense to this thread

It's a shame Ireland doesn't have free healthcare

It may or may not be but is irrelevant to the thread. I do not recall anywhere in this thread a post that suggested it did. I fail to see your point, so forgive me if I dismiss your post as really poor attempt at a strawman. I am not aware of any country that has "free" healthcare. This thread is about how it is paid for. Perhaps you could provide me a link to a country that does have free healthcare.

"or you wont find an answer here because most of us did it the LEGAL way and waited 50643 years for a k visa, then filed for AOS... "

their timeline shows that their K-1 visa took under 4 months to issue.................

Just as an aside time lines on VJ are about as reliable as the answers you get on the "disinformation line" I say this because I filled ours in wrongly and have been unable to edit it to show the correct information, that may or may not be the situation with the OP as well. Maybe the powers that be can tweak the software to allow us to adjust mistakes?

We live in the Frisco/Dallas area...can't get even a driver's permit without the green card...you really need to wait for your permanent resident card before they issue you a permit and state ID as well...

Good luck and Godspeed,

Ummm you need to refer to my post above and the Texas DMV site. An EAD is all that is required for a Texas DL/ID. If you have difficulties with a local member of staff ask for a supervisor and refer them to the published requirements.

To many people, dogs and cats are like children to them. Why would someone bringing their dog on holiday cause suspicion to an immigration officer? Would someone bringing their children with them on holiday to the US be suspect as well? Of course not! lol

I think some people are grasping at straws here....I can't imagine that AOS interviewers ask anyone, routinely, if they brought their dog with them when they came here, thus proving they had premeditated intentions of marrying a USC and immigrating to the US..... Just a thought

I am glad you raised the point of children, just like pets having them in your home country tends to show strong evidence of ties to that country and non immigrant intent. Most people could not afford to take 90 days vacation which is the maximum time allowed in the US under the VWP and the children would not have 90 days school vacation time either, so if someone arrived with kids in tow for 90 days that would equally give rise to suspicion as to intent.

Having a return ticket for the maximum time permitted in itself raises red flags. The vast majority of people entering from the UK on VWP do so for a 2 week vacation not for 90 days. ANYTHING out of the ordinary pattern of a vacation visitor raises a red flag.

The OP has that issue to deal with before any others.

I deliberately asked the question about the pet passport because if the dog did not have a chip then it is an automatic 6 months quarantine on return to the UK and the " I could not bear to be parted from my pet for 3 months " argument collapses instantly. Likewise I wanted to know where the return ticket was to. There are a limited number of POE in the UK that you can enter with an animal, so once again the issue could have been raised.

Where people are called for a secondary interview they are subjected to questioning a whole lot more personal than did you bring a pet, so your assertion that an IO would not follow such lines of questioning is incorrect.

Always remember that in a situation where the applicant is AOS from VWP the onus is not on the IO to prove you had immigrant intent but rather on the applicant showing that they did not have such intent. Anything that may give rise to issues over this a potential difficulty. I am not grasping at straws it isn't my application, but to suggest to the OP it is OK to live with the misconception that there is no possibility that the dog could be raised as an issue and everything will be fine is plain bad advice.

Just another thought

The question in itself worries me. If someone is making a choice to choose a particular path because there is less chance of it being denied as fraudulent would tend to indicate fraudulent intent in the first place. The correct path is the one that fits the circumstances of an individual couple in a genuine relationship - just sayin'

.....or you wont find an answer here because most of us did it the LEGAL way and waited 50643 years for a k visa, then filed for AOS...

Oh please get off your high horse, there is nothing inheritently illegal in getting married and adjusting status other ways than by a K visa This myth is perpetuated on VJ time after time.

The argument that with nationalized medicine you are paying for some 'freeloaders' health care doesn't hold water either. At least not with me.

Last time I looked the people on welfare ALREADY HAVE a medical card and get seen pretty quickly at the ER. In short, their medical costs are ALREADY being paid for with the tax dollars of working people.

But what about the little guy in the middle? The guy working but not for a corporation who insures him?

Yeah - he's a freeloader with no 'right' to health care.

Give me a break.

Shame on you introducing common sense to this thread

I think Captain Ewok can ban IP addresses.. so unless he can figure his way around that I don't think he will be back...

Anyone who owns a board can ban IP's. It's a perk of the job! The only way Matako will be back is if he is "let back in".

... or uses a different ip

Unless he/she has a rolling IP it is difficult to change your home PC IP without changing ISP. He/she could, however, use a work PC or go to an internet cafe.

Or use a proxy. It simply is not possible to perma ban someone from a forum who knows what they are doing. Some of the most entertaining threads I have seen on other Fora are where the increasingly angry and power tripping owner tries unsuccessfully to ban someone who decides they will still post anyways. The best you can do is moderate all posts before they appear and that is simply not feasible on a board with any amount of traffic. Matako will I am sure be back if he feels so inclined.

I would get an EAD for the dog, it would probably come quicker!..just kidding.

......

I want to know if the dog needs to apply for LPR status if not then perhaps if we all claimed to be animals we could avoid the paperwork

If the passport has a symbol like this on the cover it has an RFID Chip in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rfid_passport

OH SURE USE A BIGGER PICTURE THAN MINE

You can of course disable the RFID feature by wrapping your passport in aluminium foil

You need either your green card or EAD to work legally. I think that may be the least of your worries as you have show that you had no immigrant intent and I suspect your dog coming with you is going to raise interesting questions in that regard. Does your dog have a pet passport? Good luck non the less.

Yes my dog has a pet passport, I got him one before I came here, it was valid for two years. I can see what your saying about questions being asked. I didn't come here with intentions of staying, I had a return ticket, and my dog was booked on the flight back with me. I didn't even bring anything but 3 months of clothes with me.

Pauline I am not making a judgement, just pointing out the obvious which I am sure you had already considered. Personally I wouldn't volunteer the information about the dog unless specifically asked. The pet passport is a good thing from your point of view as presumably your re entry was at Manchester where they have Animal Reception Facilities, you can not use the pet passport scheme in Scotland for dogs from the USA for some reason unbeknown to me. I would be interested to know how it goes when you reach the Interview stage as it is certainly one of the more unusual questions I have seen posed on here. Good luck.

yeah, I was totally confused about the threads.

I agree. It's really a waste and very childish.

Maybe you could start a Monthly thread instead?

What you have is called an E-Passport, all new passports issued by the US Govt will have a chip.

"An Electronic Passport is the same as a traditional passport with the addition of a small integrated circuit (or “chip”) embedded in the back cover. The chip will store the same data visually displayed on the data page of the passport, a biometric identifier in the form of a digital image of the passport photograph, which will facilitate the use of face recognition technology at ports-of-entry, the unique chip identification number and a digital signature to protect the stored data from alteration." - http://travel.state.gov/passport/eppt/eppt_2788.html

Other related link:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,123246-page,1/article.html

I doubt it somehow as the OP stated they are a UK Citizen and obtained presumably a UK passport from the Washington Embassy.

If you look under the word passport on the front cover you will see the biometric symbol if you have one of the new biometric passports

You can see an example by clicking HERE

I am just curious as to why you are having a new passport after only a year

You need either your green card or EAD to work legally. I think that may be the least of your worries as you have show that you had no immigrant intent and I suspect your dog coming with you is going to raise interesting questions in that regard. Does your dog have a pet passport? Good luck non the less.

This question has prabably been asked a lot, but I can't find any information on my situation. I came here as a visitor to the US, got married to a USC, and applied for a visa. I was supposed to apply for a green card, but I applied for the wrong thing. Anyway, my question is, can I still apply for an ead card? Is there any way I can work legally without one? Thanks.

You came as a "visitor" yet brought your dog with you?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...=53220&st=0

An EAD card and SS# or an affadavit if you have no SS# is is sufficent in TX

http://www.dmv.org/tx-texas/apply-license.php

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administratio...equirements.htm

I have heard that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but I don't believe that either. Your fiancee can not legally enter under the VWP with intent to immigrate to the USA, to do so is visa fraud.

So, you feel strongly about your cause...but not THAT strongly, not strong enough that you'd actually want to stand in the cold and rain whilst holding a banner. No, instead pay someone to do it for you.

Hypocritical anyone?

No more hypocritical than an industry hiring a lobbyist to present their case rather than presenting the case themselves Or perhaps when someone goes to court they could dispense with a lawyer if they believe in their own case strongly enough.

industry hires a lobbyist due to that person's ability to glad hand/strong arm/coax everyone into what the industry wants.

people hire a lawyer because of that person's track record, professional credentials, and perceived ability to win their case.

these guys just hold a sign in the rain. yup, i see the similarity

Why do you see rain everywhere when there is so much sunshine in the world?

So, you feel strongly about your cause...but not THAT strongly, not strong enough that you'd actually want to stand in the cold and rain whilst holding a banner. No, instead pay someone to do it for you.

Hypocritical anyone?

No more hypocritical than an industry hiring a lobbyist to present their case rather than presenting the case themselves Or perhaps when someone goes to court they could dispense with a lawyer if they believe in their own case strongly enough.

Now back to topic.

The topic really is very simple but people are unable to admit to reality

1. US citizens already pay taxes that are used for medical care provision

2. They then pay an insurance premium

3. They then also pay inflated costs as consumers of other products to cover the Insurance premiums that US employers pay as a cost of doing business.

Yet somehow a number of people in the US think it would be bad to pay just once instead of 3 times because that would be socialist

No I am not reading it wrong. We are now wandering into the territory of the distinction between summary, indictable and either or offences, which is a matter of venue rather than a matter of sentence. The Offence is covered by the Criminal Damage Act 1971 the maximum sentence for which is shown below;

Ack! I know I implied that I would shut up now, but I can't seem to help myself! I blame Google.

Right. From the Norfolk Police website (why Norfolk? I don't know.) :

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 creates two levels of offence, a summary offence and a more serious offence that can be tried either in the magistrates' court or in the Crown Court.

The summary offence triable only by magistrates is limited to damage to property worth less than £5000. The offender can receive a maximum 3 month prison sentence and/or a Level 4 fine.

Higher value criminal damage cases are heard either in the magistrates' court or in the Crown Court. The more serious cases heard in the magistrates' court attract a maximum prison sentence of 6 months and a Level 5 fine. The serious cases heard in Crown Court can receive a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

Is the distinction of a summary offence merely a matter of venue? If so, what I bolded above is very badly worded. If it can only be tried by a magistrate, then the maximum sentence cannot exceed 3 months.

Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the Criminal Damage Act 1971? I haven't been able to find it online yet, but I'll keep looking.

I promise I really will shut up now. Er, for a bit, at least.

Why on earth would the Police know about the law? They are constantly getting it wrong hence the low conviction rate (teasing)

The Act is easy to find here ya go

http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/Criminal%20Da...1%20c%2048).htm

The section you refer to above is not from the Criminal Damage Act itself but from of the provisions of Section 22, Schedule 22 and Schedule 2 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (MCA) which deal with the determination of mode of trial for the Scheduled offences. Where the value of the property destroyed or damaged is currently not more than £5000, the damage is treated as it were only triable summarily. ie in a magistrates court with a maximum sentence of 3 months. However to complicate matters there IS provision even in this case (technically and very rarely admittedly) under ot

her legislation for the magistrates to refer it to Crown Court for sentencing. See I told you it wasnt as it first appeared

If you want to read more about the current Prosecution guidelines you can read them here ( cheaper and more effective than sleeping pills

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section11/chap...ml#_Toc13565160

In reality there appears to be a mountain out of a molehill situation here and although with US Immigration no one can expect common sense to prevail I would expect a waiver to be granted in this case without too much difficulty. I am in no doubt it fits the definition of CIMT because it involves damage to property, but bear in mind the UK law does not actually define damage - go figure. Something as simple as smearing mud on a police station wall has been held to be "damage"

If it were me I would disclose and apply for the waiver fully expecting it to cause a minor delay in processing but no huge problem overall. As to the OP considering a consultation with a UK lawyer I would say if you really want some hand holding and reassurance then consult a US Immigration attorney. They really are much better placed to advise on this as they the US are concerned with their definition of CIMT and really do not give a hoot about what the UK or anywhere else for that matter say on the matter.

Good luck on your journey and try not to lose too much sleep on this one.

Right. I have that pdf, too; pretty clearly CiMT. Just wasn't sure about the exemption based on maximum severity of sentence YuandDan noted, but I'll yield to your greater experience on that statute. Does the venue not affect the maximum imposable sentence at all?

Definitely disclose. Lying bad.

No venue only affects the sentencing powers available to the presiding magistrate/judge.

The lower maximum sentences available to the courts of first instance mean in reality many people will opt to be tried in the magistrates court to minimise their punishment potential if that makes sense to you?

However, the magistrates are always at liberty to (1) decide the offence is so serious they feel it should be passed to a higher court, or (2) try the case then decide they have insufficient sentencing powers and refer it to Crown Court for sentencing.

Hope that clears it up for you in very basic terms ( all is never as it appears with the English Legal system )

#######????????

Exactly...the insurance co's/healthcare providers have way too much power now.

The insurers are the paying consumers are you saying that consumers should have no power over where they spend their money? The issue of private medical insurance is a whole different ball game. But the Insurers are a commercial organisation with a duty to provide a return on investment to their shareholders. Its called commercial reality.

I suppose it's a question of values - should healthcare be a profiting industry? Particularly as you pointed out - they're serving their shareholder's interests first and foremost... a conflict of interest and the insured pay the price, both in terms of higher premiums, less coverage and in terms of quality of care.

Fundamentally flawed argument, but I can understand why. Health care is to me the health providers and they may or may not be a profit making organisation owned by shareholders or in the case of nationalised medicine the government. The insurance companies on the other hand are an entirely different beast. With a few obscure exceptions (insurer of last resort legislation) they are privately owned companies that exist for one purpose only which is to make money. Many people make the mistake of confusing the two entities which leads to illogical conclusions.

Whether or not healthcare should be a profiting industry has nothing to do with Insurance companies clearly being one. It is rather like saying body shops make a profit by charging outrageous hourly labour rates therefore the insurance companies are responsible as they pay most of the bills.

I don't think that National Public Healthcare will take off over here, due to the huge monopoly of health insurance companies - and the many lobbyists they employ.

There's only one Health Insurance company in the US?

No. There's also more than one media company too

How can it be a huge monopoly if there are more than one?

An industry can have a monopoly on a service.

The correct term would be oligopoly

Or perhaps more correct in terms of Insurance Monopolistic Competition.