I-94 will soon expire.. still pending AOS approval

[LaL 418]

Moderators do not do "quality control" for immigration advice but as members we do chime in where we have experience and/or places where we can add to the discussion. Of course we scan for advice that can be interpreted as a violation of immigration law as covered by the TOS.

My main issue with these back & forth dialogues is it seems to amount to nothing other than butted heads. Is anyone learning anything? Is any final conclusion come to? If the long discussion do nothing but keep rehashing the same suggestions to the OP , I can't see exactly where this is beneficial. Say your piece, let it stand for itself. If you have discussion with another member, be open to the ideas another one presents, otherwise what truly is the point? Is butting of heads really that important when arguing about someone else's journey? The discussions should really be about looking at other POV's but that is clearly not happening here.

Anyway, my take on it.

[rebeccajo 14]

Because the other members offering their input are female members, and that just doesn't sit too well with pushbrk.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Moderators do not do "quality control" for immigration advice but as members we do chime in where we have experience and/or places where we can add to the discussion. Of course we scan for advice that can be interpreted as a violation of immigration law as covered by the TOS.

My main issue with these back & forth dialogues is it seems to amount to nothing other than butted heads. Is anyone learning anything? Is any final conclusion come to? If the long discussion do nothing but keep rehashing the same suggestions to the OP , I can't see exactly where this is beneficial. Say your piece, let it stand for itself. If you have discussion with another member, be open to the ideas another one presents, otherwise what truly is the point? Is butting of heads really that important when arguing about someone else's journey? The discussions should really be about looking at other POV's but that is clearly not happening here.

Anyway, my take on it.

Thank you LaL for your input.... I agree that butting heads is not good..... but I can not stand aside and watch as someone continues to give bad/wrong advice over this issue.... to advise someone to withdraw their application and to leave the US before their I-94 expires in this situation is just out and out wrong.... information like that could have a very bad result for anyone who followed it... yes we can say "well nobody should follow advise given on an internet forum" but some do....

Kez

[pushbrk 13,260]

Moderators do not do "quality control" for immigration advice but as members we do chime in where we have experience and/or places where we can add to the discussion. Of course we scan for advice that can be interpreted as a violation of immigration law as covered by the TOS.

My main issue with these back & forth dialogues is it seems to amount to nothing other than butted heads. Is anyone learning anything? Is any final conclusion come to? If the long discussion do nothing but keep rehashing the same suggestions to the OP , I can't see exactly where this is beneficial. Say your piece, let it stand for itself. If you have discussion with another member, be open to the ideas another one presents, otherwise what truly is the point? Is butting of heads really that important when arguing about someone else's journey? The discussions should really be about looking at other POV's but that is clearly not happening here.

Anyway, my take on it.

So, does the hypothetical constitute TOS violation or not?

I've bolded your two questions above. I suppose they were posed rhetorically but I consider the answers critical. I think many readers will learn from the discussion that the spouse of a USC need not bother with the spouse visa process, if they can instead use the VWP or a visitor visa to enter the US, then file for AOS on the basis of "We changed our mind."

For the record, "This looks like clear visa fraud." is not an accusation. It's an opinion given as a reason to consult an attorney. Blowing things far out of proportion through liberal exaggeration is counterproductive.

I would really like to see some direct answer to a direct question here. Is there no moderator with the courage to do so?

[rebeccajo 14]

Moderators do not do "quality control" for immigration advice but as members we do chime in where we have experience and/or places where we can add to the discussion. Of course we scan for advice that can be interpreted as a violation of immigration law as covered by the TOS.

My main issue with these back & forth dialogues is it seems to amount to nothing other than butted heads. Is anyone learning anything? Is any final conclusion come to? If the long discussion do nothing but keep rehashing the same suggestions to the OP , I can't see exactly where this is beneficial. Say your piece, let it stand for itself. If you have discussion with another member, be open to the ideas another one presents, otherwise what truly is the point? Is butting of heads really that important when arguing about someone else's journey? The discussions should really be about looking at other POV's but that is clearly not happening here.

Anyway, my take on it.

So, does the hypothetical constitute TOS violation or not?

I've bolded your two questions above. I suppose they were posed rhetorically but I consider the answers critical. I think many readers will learn from the discussion that the spouse of a USC need not bother with the spouse visa process, if they can instead use the VWP or a visitor visa to enter the US, then file for AOS on the basis of "We changed our mind."

For the record, "This looks like clear visa fraud." is not an accusation. It's an opinion given as a reason to consult an attorney. Blowing things far out of proportion through liberal exaggeration is counterproductive.

I would really like to see some direct answer to a direct question here. Is there no moderator with the courage to do so?

Well, if LaL or Mags answer you, will that be enough? Or will it take William?

[pushbrk 13,260]

Moderators do not do "quality control" for immigration advice but as members we do chime in where we have experience and/or places where we can add to the discussion. Of course we scan for advice that can be interpreted as a violation of immigration law as covered by the TOS.

My main issue with these back & forth dialogues is it seems to amount to nothing other than butted heads. Is anyone learning anything? Is any final conclusion come to? If the long discussion do nothing but keep rehashing the same suggestions to the OP , I can't see exactly where this is beneficial. Say your piece, let it stand for itself. If you have discussion with another member, be open to the ideas another one presents, otherwise what truly is the point? Is butting of heads really that important when arguing about someone else's journey? The discussions should really be about looking at other POV's but that is clearly not happening here.

Anyway, my take on it.

So, does the hypothetical constitute TOS violation or not?

I've bolded your two questions above. I suppose they were posed rhetorically but I consider the answers critical. I think many readers will learn from the discussion that the spouse of a USC need not bother with the spouse visa process, if they can instead use the VWP or a visitor visa to enter the US, then file for AOS on the basis of "We changed our mind."

For the record, "This looks like clear visa fraud." is not an accusation. It's an opinion given as a reason to consult an attorney. Blowing things far out of proportion through liberal exaggeration is counterproductive.

I would really like to see some direct answer to a direct question here. Is there no moderator with the courage to do so?

Well, if LaL or Mags answer you, will that be enough? Or will it take William?

I think I was quite clear of whom the question was asked. I said "a moderator" and also indicated I had PM'd the Captain with a link to the question. Perhaps the moderators wish to hear from their Captain before answering. So be it.

[rebeccajo 14]

Moderators do not do "quality control" for immigration advice but as members we do chime in where we have experience and/or places where we can add to the discussion. Of course we scan for advice that can be interpreted as a violation of immigration law as covered by the TOS.

My main issue with these back & forth dialogues is it seems to amount to nothing other than butted heads. Is anyone learning anything? Is any final conclusion come to? If the long discussion do nothing but keep rehashing the same suggestions to the OP , I can't see exactly where this is beneficial. Say your piece, let it stand for itself. If you have discussion with another member, be open to the ideas another one presents, otherwise what truly is the point? Is butting of heads really that important when arguing about someone else's journey? The discussions should really be about looking at other POV's but that is clearly not happening here.

Anyway, my take on it.

So, does the hypothetical constitute TOS violation or not?

I've bolded your two questions above. I suppose they were posed rhetorically but I consider the answers critical. I think many readers will learn from the discussion that the spouse of a USC need not bother with the spouse visa process, if they can instead use the VWP or a visitor visa to enter the US, then file for AOS on the basis of "We changed our mind."

For the record, "This looks like clear visa fraud." is not an accusation. It's an opinion given as a reason to consult an attorney. Blowing things far out of proportion through liberal exaggeration is counterproductive.

I would really like to see some direct answer to a direct question here. Is there no moderator with the courage to do so?

Well, if LaL or Mags answer you, will that be enough? Or will it take William?

I think I was quite clear of whom the question was asked. I said "a moderator" and also indicated I had PM'd the Captain with a link to the question. Perhaps the moderators wish to hear from their Captain before answering. So be it.

Yes you asked the question of a moderator and LaL answered you. And still that's not good enough.

Hello? Table for one - clearly deluded.

[LaL 418]

Moderators do not do "quality control" for immigration advice but as members we do chime in where we have experience and/or places where we can add to the discussion. Of course we scan for advice that can be interpreted as a violation of immigration law as covered by the TOS.

My main issue with these back & forth dialogues is it seems to amount to nothing other than butted heads. Is anyone learning anything? Is any final conclusion come to? If the long discussion do nothing but keep rehashing the same suggestions to the OP , I can't see exactly where this is beneficial. Say your piece, let it stand for itself. If you have discussion with another member, be open to the ideas another one presents, otherwise what truly is the point? Is butting of heads really that important when arguing about someone else's journey? The discussions should really be about looking at other POV's but that is clearly not happening here.

Anyway, my take on it.

So, does the hypothetical constitute TOS violation or not?

I've bolded your two questions above. I suppose they were posed rhetorically but I consider the answers critical. I think many readers will learn from the discussion that the spouse of a USC need not bother with the spouse visa process, if they can instead use the VWP or a visitor visa to enter the US, then file for AOS on the basis of "We changed our mind."

For the record, "This looks like clear visa fraud." is not an accusation. It's an opinion given as a reason to consult an attorney. Blowing things far out of proportion through liberal exaggeration is counterproductive.

I would really like to see some direct answer to a direct question here. Is there no moderator with the courage to do so?

I agree that those rhetorical questions are important. Why are you asking me if I have any courage to answer a direct question? I fail to see how that at all addresses the thread. I do not do quality control and neither do the other mods - you members are responsible for that and the way you conduct yourselves. If the intention is to provide clarity & education, and all of this back & forth does nothing but retract from the message.

If the concern is there is rampant posting of misinformation, back up your sources, provide anecdotal evidence, and by all means, if the question is outside of the scope your (general you) understanding, let someone else reply, research it or refer them to competant counsel.

As for your hypothetical - I have no idea - as a member I wouldnt answer such because I dont know and it is a grey area. What constitutes a TOS violation is the "humping your cyberleg" reference in a discussion about someone's immigration journey.

I am closing this thread at this time.