ValerieA

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole
loop·hole noun \ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
: an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it
There is no error in the way the law is written that allows AOS. There is WRITTEN LAW that allows AOS explicitly. Your definition is flawed, although it still supports AOS from visitor visa or VWP as the intent of the system is to allow for it under the appropriate circumstances.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole
loop·hole noun \ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
: an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it
There is no error in the way the law is written that allows AOS. There is WRITTEN LAW that allows AOS explicitly. Your definition is flawed, although it still supports AOS from visitor visa or VWP as the intent of the system is to allow for it under the appropriate circumstances.

Seriously. How many times does it need to be said.
It is not a loophole. It is a valid path for some under specific circumstances. I feel like we are having some sort of communication breakdown about what the term "loophole" implies. A loophole implies a gap in the immigration regulations that may be exploited (or, for a less emotive term, utilised) by a party to achieve their specific end whilst still being technically legal. There is no gap here. There is a valid and specified path for situations such as the OP's that has been spelled out clearly.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole
loop·hole noun \ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
: an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it
There is no error in the way the law is written that allows AOS. There is WRITTEN LAW that allows AOS explicitly. Your definition is flawed, although it still supports AOS from visitor visa or VWP as the intent of the system is to allow for it under the appropriate circumstances.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole
loop·hole noun \ˈlüp-ˌhōl\
: an error in the way a law, rule, or contract is written that makes it possible for some people to legally avoid obeying it
There is no error in the way the law is written that allows AOS. There is WRITTEN LAW that allows AOS explicitly. Your definition is flawed, although it still supports AOS from visitor visa or VWP as the intent of the system is to allow for it under the appropriate circumstances.

I don't know why anyone would wish that others endure separation from their loved ones to conform to a bureaucratic process. USCIS even agrees that it would be overly bureaucratic to send people home just to have them come back.
For me, I wish for faster processing times for consular processes, so that separation for people who were not in the US be as short as possible.

There's a lot of people on here who do not understand the definition of 'loophole'.

There's a lot of people on here who do not understand the definition of 'loophole'.

You don't have to prove that you did not have intent; intent can not be used as a reason to deny AOS. AOS looks to be the right way to go for you, check out the guide in the menu above and go from there...
AOS is easy and fast, although not all that cheap (still, cheaper than flights to and from France to visit!). The very few denials I have seen stemmed from sham marriages, incorrectly prepared paperwork, or not responding to RFE's (Request For Evidence) within the time frame allowed.

This is correct.
The marriage cert serves as a federal name change document. So, for AOS, USCIS will accept that as proof of valid name change. The new married name does not need to appear on the document, and neither does it need to match the passport. USCIS will issue a GC in the name you indicate on the I-485.
So, if a person wants to change their name after marriage, they just start using the new married name. As such, they should fill out the GC application in the new married name. It starts the process of collecting IDs in the new name and getting the new name on official papers.

It's because your posts are doubly important.
Poutine. That covers a number of the topics. Definitely including personal issues.

Yeah, I'm one of those that the entry guard wrote "No COS/AOS" on my I-94 and I had no problem adjusting.

Yeah, I'm one of those that the entry guard wrote "No COS/AOS" on my I-94 and I had no problem adjusting.

Boiler is being funny...
Boiler, stop freaking people out.

Boiler is being funny...
Boiler, stop freaking people out.

Whoa, whoa, hold on here, let's not go crazy.

Whoa, whoa, hold on here, let's not go crazy.

Whoa, whoa, hold on here, let's not go crazy.

I thought it was because you are pronouncing "aitch" which starts with a vowel - in this particular case. Just like you would say "an M". I do agree with your hotel rule, of course, just didn't think it applied in this particular instance.
Look at me being the grammar Nazi! I might have a new career. Unless I'm incorrect, of course.

I thought it was because you are pronouncing "aitch" which starts with a vowel - in this particular case. Just like you would say "an M". I do agree with your hotel rule, of course, just didn't think it applied in this particular instance.
Look at me being the grammar Nazi! I might have a new career. Unless I'm incorrect, of course.

You could not AOS in Saipan.

You should have said "No doubt in my mind" because there is considerable doubt. Your wife did NOT get denied, so, yet again, we have not seen a case where someone was denied due to intent. And what the interviewer thinks does NOT matter. What matters is the handy little guide they all have and they have to follow.

You should have said "No doubt in my mind" because there is considerable doubt. Your wife did NOT get denied, so, yet again, we have not seen a case where someone was denied due to intent. And what the interviewer thinks does NOT matter. What matters is the handy little guide they all have and they have to follow.

Obviously not. If they are currently not in the country, AOS is not an option for them. I'm not sure why so many people can't figure out the distinction between the person asking for advice being outside the US or inside the US. Outside the US = no AOS. Inside the US = yes.