Wondering why ...

[Yodrak 7]

evergreen,

Recourse is available to aliens who are in the USA. But recognize two things:

- they are not in the USA until the CBP admits them, and

- as zyggy has pointed out it's the alien who must convince the CBP officer that they are qualified to be admitted. The CBP officer does not deny entry based on a hunch, they deny entry because the alien has not met the burden of proof - as the law tells them to do.

When an alien provides evidence that they are not admissable, such as providing evidence or testimony that they are married when trying to enter as a fiance(e), what's a CBP officer to do? Break the law and admit them?

Yodrak

I still find it really weird that law enforcement has authority here that is not overseen by the judicial system. The judicial system is what keeps law enforcement honest and holds law enforcement to the same laws that we are all held to. If people accused of or charged with crimes were not able to enforce their constitutional rights and be heard before a judge/jury (if it were only up to cops), every person ever arrested would be in prison, innocent or not. I realize we aren't talking about U.S. citizens here - but aren't the rights of the U.S. spouse violated when a law enforcement agent (not a judge) makes a decision without sufficient evidence where there is no recourse for those accused?

Without the judicial system (with all of it's imperfections, such as not being truly available to those with low incomes), we'd have essentially no enforceable rights. It would be a police state.

I don't anticipate being denied entry as we will have either the K3 visa or the CR1 visa, and we are legally married and have followed all the rules - but the thought that someone could see someone wearing rings and destroy their life over that fact makes me feel sick. No court in this country would find the wearing of rings as sufficient evidence to prove a marriage.

"Walks like a duck, talks like a duck..." is based on one person's opinion, and could be extremely subjective.

Judges and juries are required to be objective (as much as humanly possible, anyway).

That part doesn't make sense and I hope that there is just recourse for couples falsely accused or wrongly turned away (even if it rarely happens) so that they can appeal the decision of law enforcement via a higher authority or the judicial system.

As long as there is legal recourse available, then it protects people from being wrongly denied or wrongly accused, judged, etc.

It's good that the border agents can catch mistakes by the consulate and attempt to weed out those who may be legally ineligible to enter, but I would hope that they would require more evidence than a hunch, personal opinion (which is inherently bias, even on this forum and even in this post!) - is there no standard of evidence?

In a courtroom, evidence must meet certain rules - which weed out unreliable or biased evidence/accusations, etc.

Thanks!

Edited September 21, 2006 by Yodrak

[evergreen 0]

When we go to our interview at the consulate, we must have a valid marriage certificate. We cannot present ourselves at the consulate with wedding rings and obtain a K3 or CR1 visa.

So is it fair to refuse admission based on an alleged marriage, when that same alleged marriage would not be recognised as a lawful marriage by the USCIS or consulate in order to obtain a marriage related visa?

[zyggy 9]

When we go to our interview at the consulate, we must have a valid marriage certificate. We cannot present ourselves at the consulate with wedding rings and obtain a K3 or CR1 visa.

So is it fair to refuse admission based on an alleged marriage, when that same alleged marriage would not be recognised as a lawful marriage by the USCIS or consulate in order to obtain a marriage related visa?

The example given was for a K1... in order to be admitted as a K1, one must not be married... if one gives evidence that they are married, then they are not eligible to be admitted on a K1. If one could give irrefutable proof that one was not married at that instant of time of appearance at the POE, then CBP would happily allow them to enter.

However, it is impossible to prove that one is not married as of the time thet they made the appearance at the POE... it is easy to prove one is married... see the difference...

Edited September 21, 2006 by zyggy

[evergreen 0]

Nope.

How can you penalize an engaged couple and refuse the fiance entry under a K1 visa for an alleged "marriage" when the evidence of this alleged "marriage" would not be sufficient for the couple to qualify as "married" for a K3 or CR1?

It's a double standard and puts the couple in a catch-22 situation.

You'd also put them in a situation where they have no way to disprove your allegations.

How do you prove that you're NOT married? You can't. That's like charging someone with murder when there is no missing person, no body, no weapon and no complaint by anyone. How could they prove that they had NOT murdered someone?

In court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff or the prosecutor - to prove that the accused did commit the crime or act, not on the defendant. I feel it should be the same here. You can't just make an allegation without sufficient evidence of a legitimate marriage.

It seems to me that you could only justly refuse entry if there is evidence that a supposedly engaged couple actually has a marriage that would be recognized by the USCIS, U.S. law, consulate, etc. Anything else would be unjust.

Since having rings on or even calling eachother husband and wife (lots of people do this even though they aren't married) or having a ceremony that is not recognized by law as "marriage" would NOT be recognized as a marriage by the USCIS, how can you use that same "marriage" to deny an engaged couple entry?

Common law marriage isn't normally automatic - you have to meet a number of requirements and then ask the that the marriage be recognized.

What next? Every woman who crosses the border who ever wrote the title Mrs. before a high school jock or movie star name will be ineligble for entry under the K1 because she's "married" to whose ever name she wrote years ago? I know that's an exaggeration, but I believe it's the same idea. There has to be evidence of a legal marriage to claim that a couple is married.

It's crazy.

Edited September 22, 2006 by evergreen

[meauxna 15]

eg, I think you're still stuck with the criminal justice system in mind.

People are turned away every day on the suspicion that they will immigrate. For carrying things like:

-resume

-business cards

-birth certificate

-love letters

People have had their personal diaries read at a POE, had their purse/briefcase rifled for evidence, have had numbers from their phone books called.

CBP's job is to keep everyone 'else' out.

It's not on a flimsy suspicion that these refusals happen. For K-1s, I remember a case where the bride had wedding photos on her at entry, yet was presenting herself as unmarried at the POE (that's called lying, or material misrepresentation). In the recent VJ case, the man called the woman "my wife".

CBP doesn't have to be up on all the marriage ceremonies and rules from around the world, the person asking for entry has to be up on the rules for the US.

It does make an interesting puzzle---that relationship would not be sufficient to qualify them for a marriage visa. One should really be careful about what they're doing when entering the US.