Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ourwildjourney

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Member # 342352
  • Location Los Angeles, CA, USA

Profile Information

  • City
    Los Angeles
  • State

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Adjustment of Status (pending)
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm sorry. I'm not following this one as clearly. Are you saying why would they bother raising something since you can just get a waiver anyway? Or am I missing what you are saying?
  2. Thank you for this. It makes sense. Sounds like it is used as an indicator of intent. We are the real deal with so much documentation and openness of how a visit to Arizona turned into California travel and then organic quality time with my family and then her family. All we can do is tell the truth and show them who we are and how important she is to her stepdaughters and to me. And bring lots of evidence of it and pray and hope for the best.
  3. Exactly! As @missileman pointed out to me, this is coming from the DOS guidelines telling DOS officers that changing intent within 90 days of crossing could be sign of intent to defraud. That's where it appears to be coming from. it does not apply n this case but A LOT (AS IN A WHOLE LOT) of lawyers think it does and scared the BLEEEEEP out of us over those nine days.
  4. I CANNOT THANK YOU ENOUGH FOR THIS!!! I knew it was coming from somewhere. This makes sense now. THe lawyers are playing it very safe to cover all bases. My guess is that lawyers are used to dealing with clients who are on the edge of legality and needing the legal help. So they play it safe. and say don't take a chance. If, however, you are telling the truth and backing it up to the IO, he or she can evaluate on his or her own. BUT the DOS guidelines might help inform intent. lawyers are paid to play it safe. Or also possible they heard a new rule / guideline and decide not to take chances at all. THANK YOU FOR THIS!
  5. Every lawyer talks about needing to make no moves at all within the first 90 days of entry. Are they just misinterpreting something? Every lawyer quotes it. And nobody here thinks it matters. (And I trust this forum way more than the lawyers so far ...) WHat's the source of the misconception?
  6. GOT IT! Thank you SOOO much! Literally were in tears over here . Sorry--Just saw your in depth response about work vs family. THANKS!
  7. What is the 30-60-90 rule? When does that apply? I think that is what keep coming up.
  8. Why does everyone keep talking about this 90 days after crossing the border? Where is it coming from? Thank you!
  9. Yes but a friend and not someone we were paying for counsel. So I couldn't tell if they were giving the conservative opinions or were talking about hard and fast rules. I guess the question is if the customs agent at the interview gets to make up his or her mind based on the facts or just says "Nope - married 81 days in so it's a violation of a hard and fast rule" or something. So stressful!!!
  10. Yes . . . but she came to USA to see friends in Arizona first and truly was a tourist at that time and was paying rent in Canada. So she really was "living" in Canada and "visiting" the USA until at some point this family and this country became more her home than there. This feels like a Sarte existential question of "where does one truly live" . aahhhhhhh THANK YOU!!!!
  11. Thank you! Yes we are head deep in everything right now. What we are having trouble with is saying the dates she lived in Canada through and then the dates she started physically residing at her home with me and the girls here. Is it okay for us to say Canada through December (since she was paying rent and thought she was going back) and then California starting December? Or do we need to decide when she for sure 100% was not going to go back and that's the date even though her stuff and apartment were still in Vancouver?
  • Create New...