pauli

So you think if your buddy had a letter from you inviting him to surf the California shore and stating you'll pay his expenses, then that would have turned the consular officer's judgement?  Anybody can write such a letter - it's just a piece of paper - and COs are smart individuals.

So you think if your buddy had a letter from you inviting him to surf the California shore and stating you'll pay his expenses, then that would have turned the consular officer's judgement?  Anybody can write such a letter - it's just a piece of paper - and COs are smart individuals.

So you think if your buddy had a letter from you inviting him to surf the California shore and stating you'll pay his expenses, then that would have turned the consular officer's judgement?  Anybody can write such a letter - it's just a piece of paper - and COs are smart individuals.

As I wrote earlier, if the administration/Stephen Miller were truly concerned about "US taxpayers propping up immigrants receiving benefits", then why not simply enforce the Affidavit of Support and make the sponsor reimburse the govt?  Instead, this just reeks as a lame attempt to kick out lawful immigrants.
 
Gotta say it - republicans are living in the now, but are toast in the next few decades if they can't expand their base beyond what it currently is.  Changing demographics are gonna catch up to them.

As I wrote earlier, if the administration/Stephen Miller were truly concerned about "US taxpayers propping up immigrants receiving benefits", then why not simply enforce the Affidavit of Support and make the sponsor reimburse the govt?  Instead, this just reeks as a lame attempt to kick out lawful immigrants.
 
Gotta say it - republicans are living in the now, but are toast in the next few decades if they can't expand their base beyond what it currently is.  Changing demographics are gonna catch up to them.

As I wrote earlier, if the administration/Stephen Miller were truly concerned about "US taxpayers propping up immigrants receiving benefits", then why not simply enforce the Affidavit of Support and make the sponsor reimburse the govt?  Instead, this just reeks as a lame attempt to kick out lawful immigrants.
 
Gotta say it - republicans are living in the now, but are toast in the next few decades if they can't expand their base beyond what it currently is.  Changing demographics are gonna catch up to them.

As I wrote earlier, if the administration/Stephen Miller were truly concerned about "US taxpayers propping up immigrants receiving benefits", then why not simply enforce the Affidavit of Support and make the sponsor reimburse the govt?  Instead, this just reeks as a lame attempt to kick out lawful immigrants.
 
Gotta say it - republicans are living in the now, but are toast in the next few decades if they can't expand their base beyond what it currently is.  Changing demographics are gonna catch up to them.

As I wrote earlier, if the administration/Stephen Miller were truly concerned about "US taxpayers propping up immigrants receiving benefits", then why not simply enforce the Affidavit of Support and make the sponsor reimburse the govt?  Instead, this just reeks as a lame attempt to kick out lawful immigrants.
 
Gotta say it - republicans are living in the now, but are toast in the next few decades if they can't expand their base beyond what it currently is.  Changing demographics are gonna catch up to them.

As I wrote earlier, if the administration/Stephen Miller were truly concerned about "US taxpayers propping up immigrants receiving benefits", then why not simply enforce the Affidavit of Support and make the sponsor reimburse the govt?  Instead, this just reeks as a lame attempt to kick out lawful immigrants.
 
Gotta say it - republicans are living in the now, but are toast in the next few decades if they can't expand their base beyond what it currently is.  Changing demographics are gonna catch up to them.

As I wrote earlier, if the administration/Stephen Miller were truly concerned about "US taxpayers propping up immigrants receiving benefits", then why not simply enforce the Affidavit of Support and make the sponsor reimburse the govt?  Instead, this just reeks as a lame attempt to kick out lawful immigrants.
 
Gotta say it - republicans are living in the now, but are toast in the next few decades if they can't expand their base beyond what it currently is.  Changing demographics are gonna catch up to them.

As I wrote earlier, if the administration/Stephen Miller were truly concerned about "US taxpayers propping up immigrants receiving benefits", then why not simply enforce the Affidavit of Support and make the sponsor reimburse the govt?  Instead, this just reeks as a lame attempt to kick out lawful immigrants.
 
Gotta say it - republicans are living in the now, but are toast in the next few decades if they can't expand their base beyond what it currently is.  Changing demographics are gonna catch up to them.

Geez, the lack of empathy and blatant disregard for the law from some posters in this thread is frankly a bit appalling.  If you care about the law, then read the post by Hypnos.
 
We all know how long it's taking to get a green card these days.  Imagine if you or your spouse or other family member went one year applying for jobs with a valid EAD and countinuously getting turned down because you don't have a green card yet.  You'd be pissed!  And this is her dream job!  And as far as I can tell, nothing the OP has stated implies that the job requires the person to be a US citizen.

Geez, the lack of empathy and blatant disregard for the law from some posters in this thread is frankly a bit appalling.  If you care about the law, then read the post by Hypnos.
 
We all know how long it's taking to get a green card these days.  Imagine if you or your spouse or other family member went one year applying for jobs with a valid EAD and countinuously getting turned down because you don't have a green card yet.  You'd be pissed!  And this is her dream job!  And as far as I can tell, nothing the OP has stated implies that the job requires the person to be a US citizen.

Geez, the lack of empathy and blatant disregard for the law from some posters in this thread is frankly a bit appalling.  If you care about the law, then read the post by Hypnos.
 
We all know how long it's taking to get a green card these days.  Imagine if you or your spouse or other family member went one year applying for jobs with a valid EAD and countinuously getting turned down because you don't have a green card yet.  You'd be pissed!  And this is her dream job!  And as far as I can tell, nothing the OP has stated implies that the job requires the person to be a US citizen.

Geez, the lack of empathy and blatant disregard for the law from some posters in this thread is frankly a bit appalling.  If you care about the law, then read the post by Hypnos.
 
We all know how long it's taking to get a green card these days.  Imagine if you or your spouse or other family member went one year applying for jobs with a valid EAD and countinuously getting turned down because you don't have a green card yet.  You'd be pissed!  And this is her dream job!  And as far as I can tell, nothing the OP has stated implies that the job requires the person to be a US citizen.

I agree,  I was just simply try to point out that there could be ramafications that could have a longer and far reaching effect.
 
if the company had made a written offer and then refused because of not having a GC, well I could see a blatant case for her.
 
unfortunally, in the corporate emviroment, hr overides managers

Geez, the lack of empathy and blatant disregard for the law from some posters in this thread is frankly a bit appalling.  If you care about the law, then read the post by Hypnos.
 
We all know how long it's taking to get a green card these days.  Imagine if you or your spouse or other family member went one year applying for jobs with a valid EAD and countinuously getting turned down because you don't have a green card yet.  You'd be pissed!  And this is her dream job!  And as far as I can tell, nothing the OP has stated implies that the job requires the person to be a US citizen.

I'm just trying to state facts, not opinions.  Regarding the "public charge" scenario...
 
The Department of Homeland Security has drafted rules that would expand the types of public benefits used to determine if a green card applicant may become a public charge.  As I understand it, current rules only factor in cash benefits.  This would be expanded to non-cash benefits such as food assistance programs, preschool programs, health insurance subsidies, etc.  In addition, it would be taken into account if an applicant's US citizen child were receiving such benefits (such as Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)).
 
It's just a draft and the officer would consider the totality of the situation before making a judgment.  But as I read it, the draft does imply that someone with an expensive medical condition who marries and obtains health insurance at subsidized rate through Obamacare could be denied adjustment of status based on public charge determination.  As hypothetically could an AOS applicant with a US citizen child who receives CHIP assistance.  In fact, the AOS applicant could be denied if the officer thinks he or she is likely to become a public charge at any time in the future.
 
From the draft (link below):
 
"If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an alien applying for admission or adjustment of status is likely to become a public charge at any time, the alien is inadmissable under section 212(a)(4) of the Act.....
 
(a) Prospective determination. The Secretary must determine the likelihood that an alien will become a public charge at any time in the future.
 
...
 
(b) Totality of circumstances. The Secretary must base the determination on the totality of the alien's circumstances by weighing all positive and negative factors
 
...
 
(e) Heavily weighted negative factors. The following factors weigh heavily in favor of a finding that an alien is likely to become a public charge:
 
...
              (4) The alien has a costly medical condition and is unable to show proof of unsubsidized health insurance, prospect of obtaining unsubsidized health insurance, or other non-governmental means of paying for treatment."
 
 
 
Here's the draft: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10188201/DRAFT_NPRM_public_charge.0.pdf
 
And more reading:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-services-exclusive/exclusive-trump-administration-may-target-immigrants-who-use-food-aid-other-benefits-idUSKBN1FS2ZK
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/us/politics/trump-immigrants-public-nutrition-services.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-proposal-would-penalize-immigrants-who-use-tax-credits-and-other-benefits/2018/03/28/4c6392e0-2924-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.ca11dff5fb38
https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/proposed-changes-to-public-charge-policies-for-immigrants-implications-for-health-coverage/
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/chilling-effects-expected-public-charge-rule-impact-legal-immigrant-families
 

I'm just trying to state facts, not opinions.  Regarding the "public charge" scenario...
 
The Department of Homeland Security has drafted rules that would expand the types of public benefits used to determine if a green card applicant may become a public charge.  As I understand it, current rules only factor in cash benefits.  This would be expanded to non-cash benefits such as food assistance programs, preschool programs, health insurance subsidies, etc.  In addition, it would be taken into account if an applicant's US citizen child were receiving such benefits (such as Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)).
 
It's just a draft and the officer would consider the totality of the situation before making a judgment.  But as I read it, the draft does imply that someone with an expensive medical condition who marries and obtains health insurance at subsidized rate through Obamacare could be denied adjustment of status based on public charge determination.  As hypothetically could an AOS applicant with a US citizen child who receives CHIP assistance.  In fact, the AOS applicant could be denied if the officer thinks he or she is likely to become a public charge at any time in the future.
 
From the draft (link below):
 
"If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that an alien applying for admission or adjustment of status is likely to become a public charge at any time, the alien is inadmissable under section 212(a)(4) of the Act.....
 
(a) Prospective determination. The Secretary must determine the likelihood that an alien will become a public charge at any time in the future.
 
...
 
(b) Totality of circumstances. The Secretary must base the determination on the totality of the alien's circumstances by weighing all positive and negative factors
 
...
 
(e) Heavily weighted negative factors. The following factors weigh heavily in favor of a finding that an alien is likely to become a public charge:
 
...
              (4) The alien has a costly medical condition and is unable to show proof of unsubsidized health insurance, prospect of obtaining unsubsidized health insurance, or other non-governmental means of paying for treatment."
 
 
 
Here's the draft: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10188201/DRAFT_NPRM_public_charge.0.pdf
 
And more reading:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-services-exclusive/exclusive-trump-administration-may-target-immigrants-who-use-food-aid-other-benefits-idUSKBN1FS2ZK
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/us/politics/trump-immigrants-public-nutrition-services.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-proposal-would-penalize-immigrants-who-use-tax-credits-and-other-benefits/2018/03/28/4c6392e0-2924-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.ca11dff5fb38
https://www.kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/proposed-changes-to-public-charge-policies-for-immigrants-implications-for-health-coverage/
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/chilling-effects-expected-public-charge-rule-impact-legal-immigrant-families
 

I think an IRS matter is getting conflated with an immigration matter.  Ultimately the issue is not whether or not a person can amend his or her taxes to file as married.  The point is why give immigration any reason, however small it may be, to question your relationship with your spouse.  Filing as single when you're married does that.

But question for OP - I assume they gave the wife 6 months to stay in U.S. on tourist visa.  Is that not enough time for them to sort out their situation, whether they go back to Panama or a different country?  You said that's what they want to do.  If they don't plan on staying in US, then Adjustment of Status doesn't make sense.

You all need to step back and consider the situation without taking into account the OP's tone and political commentary.
 
To me, the OP's story makes perfect sense.  The couple are missionaries and presumably want to continue their work abroad.  If they really wanted to immigrate to U.S., why didn't they just go straight to U.S. instead of going to Panama?  When they couldn't stay in Panama and couldn't go back to Venezuela, then they decided to regroup in U.S. until they find their next spot.  Makes sense to me.
 
MyJourney's immigration advice is correct.  Since she was allowed in, she can apply to adjust status whether we like it or not.   

You all need to step back and consider the situation without taking into account the OP's tone and political commentary.
 
To me, the OP's story makes perfect sense.  The couple are missionaries and presumably want to continue their work abroad.  If they really wanted to immigrate to U.S., why didn't they just go straight to U.S. instead of going to Panama?  When they couldn't stay in Panama and couldn't go back to Venezuela, then they decided to regroup in U.S. until they find their next spot.  Makes sense to me.
 
MyJourney's immigration advice is correct.  Since she was allowed in, she can apply to adjust status whether we like it or not.   

This is an interesting topic and I see benefits to scouring social media, however...
 
People who want to harm U.S. are simply not going to list their "terrorist" social media accounts, but would just submit separate social media accounts that make them seem normal.  They are not going to list email addresses that they've used for nefarious purposes.  Etc.  Bad actors are always one step ahead.
 
Thus, this just potentially creates more wait time and potential problems for the rest of us.  
 
And if they haven't already started, the next step could be to request access to social media accounts, etc. of the U.S. petitioner.  And then require access to internet browsing data from beneficiary and petitioner.
 
And those who support the current White House administration should keep in mind that it will eventually change and at some point there will certainly be a more liberal administration that might not think kindly of some of your social media posts.  I'm a bit surprised that so many of you have so much faith in the government handling this info.
 
This is not to say that I'm totally against this policy, but I think it's not so clear cut.

This is an interesting topic and I see benefits to scouring social media, however...
 
People who want to harm U.S. are simply not going to list their "terrorist" social media accounts, but would just submit separate social media accounts that make them seem normal.  They are not going to list email addresses that they've used for nefarious purposes.  Etc.  Bad actors are always one step ahead.
 
Thus, this just potentially creates more wait time and potential problems for the rest of us.  
 
And if they haven't already started, the next step could be to request access to social media accounts, etc. of the U.S. petitioner.  And then require access to internet browsing data from beneficiary and petitioner.
 
And those who support the current White House administration should keep in mind that it will eventually change and at some point there will certainly be a more liberal administration that might not think kindly of some of your social media posts.  I'm a bit surprised that so many of you have so much faith in the government handling this info.
 
This is not to say that I'm totally against this policy, but I think it's not so clear cut.