Please Help-My Cousin married a U.S. Citizen. She came to U.S. to a Nightmare

[Mags 112]

AND SO DO I. . IM COMFY WITH THIS CAPS LOCK.

Although no one here can tell you how to type your quotes, it is considered to be bad netiquette and is interpreted as meaning that the poster is shouting. Perhaps you didn't realise that, so I'm just letting you know.

egad

great that you're 'comfy'

that is, after all, THE most important thing

LIKE I'VE SAID EARLIER, I DONT HAVE THAT GOOD VISION SO I AM MORE COMFY WHEN USING CAPS LOCK.

You could increase your text size by clicking View and then Text Size. This would mean that you are comfier reading and so are the other members here on VJ when they read your posts. A compromise.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

I DONT REALLY KNOW WHO IS HARDHEADED, IF ITS ME OR YOU GUYS IM AWARE OF THE SO-CALLED E-COMM ETIQUETTE REGARDING "CAPS LOCK", LIKE AGAIN , AS WHAT I'VE SAID EARLIER, I DONT HAVE THAT GOOD VISION, AND IM NOT A TYPE OF PERSON WHO "BASICALLY " FOLLOWED THE "SO - CALLED RULES OF ETIQUITTE" JUST TO PLEASE MY READERS. AGAIN, I AM NOT SHOUTING, AGAIN, I DONT HAVE THAT GOOD VISION LIKE ALL OF YOU HERE, AND AGAIN... I WILL USE CAPS LOCK BECAUSE I AM """"""MORE """"""""" COMFORTABLE TYPING AND READING WITH CAPS ON... :luv:

You can also change the zoom in your IE, if you have problems reading your own text without caps, chances are you have problems reading other people's posts that are not in caps?

Saludos,

Caro

[mox 298]

What we DO need to know is further evidence of the character of this USC. That would dictate which course of action to take (i.e., self-apply, go home, call the police, whatever).

I'm having a hard time understanding what more we need to know about the USC's character that would make any difference at this point. The guy, if he is being accurately depicted, is a monster. He has no business being around house plants, let alone other humans.

As other posters have suggested, priority number one is for the woman to remove herself from the situation. Until that happens everything else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Once she is safe, then she should decide for herself how best to proceed. I think we can give recommendations for whatever avenue she takes, but saying "she should just go home" or "she should file form ID-10(T)" or whatever is completely unhelpful if that's not what she wants to do. She has options, she should be made aware of those options, and then helped through whatever option she decides is best for her. Opinions regarding her intentions notwithstanding, she *is* entitled to protection under the law and the benefits that her status as a resident affords her.

So to the OP, get her out of that situation. Then come back and let's talk about her options.

[sj5 4]

People, please stop arguing about this problem. Its USCIS to decide for her. (dang I'm drama queen)

Edited February 9, 2008 by SJ

[Minya's wife 24]

People, please stop arguing about this problem. Its USCIS to decide for her. (dang I'm drama queen)

Actually, USCIS has nothing to decide for her at this point. The woman has her conditional green-card...she is done w/ immigration for now.

-P

[sj5 4]

People, please stop arguing about this problem. Its USCIS to decide for her. (dang I'm drama queen)

Actually, USCIS has nothing to decide for her at this point. The woman has her conditional green-card...she is done w/ immigration for now.

-P

You're right.

[tito 1]

"...if he is being accurately depicted..."

ABSOLUTELY! IF he's being accurately depicted. Otherwise, this is America...innocent until some proof of guilt. So - really - how bad is the person? We're tarring and feathering this person, but we're hearing things 3rd and 4th hand, and the information is not necessarily reliable. Talk about rushing to judgment!

There's a certain hypocrisy about some of these threads...no matter how far off center they keep going.

[mox 298]

"...if he is being accurately depicted..."

ABSOLUTELY! IF he's being accurately depicted. Otherwise, this is America...innocent until some proof of guilt. So - really - how bad is the person? We're tarring and feathering this person, but we're hearing things 3rd and 4th hand, and the information is not necessarily reliable. Talk about rushing to judgment!

So where exactly do you expect to get a more accurate depiction of the husband? Because if you're asking the OP then he's going to tell you pretty much the same stuff. You have no source from which you can obtain an impartial portrait of this person.

Maybe it's best if you think of these forums as a kind of fiction. The OP is the writer. You have his narrative to go on, nothing else. If he says the husband is a monster, then he's a monster. Unlike a novel you actually get to ask the writer questions about his characters, just don't expect him to contradict or go against type. But like a novel, if the writer does not convince you or you're not believing or enjoying the story, then you can put it down and pick up another book/thread.

Is the OP lying or exaggerating about the husband? It's like asking if Doyle was lying or exaggerating about Moriarty. You either believe the narrative or you don't. If you don't, then nothing the writer/OP says will convince you otherwise.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Looks like she's been given abundantly sound advice. Avail herself of the processes for abused spouses, and self apply to remove restrictions. Then what?

This idea of entitlement is what sort of rubs me the wrong way...it's grab the brass ring, no matter what!

About the USC...his background would have been flagged if he was as bad as is being said. But if there are police reports, arrests and the like, and there is a fraud, then he'll come up on the radar once again if and when the OP's cousin starts the process.

Tito,

I disagree in this and other cases. While it might make more sense for an alien to return to his or her nativeland, that doesn't equate to whether they have a right to remain here. The genuine nature of the marriage is the barometer used in the statutes. There are really few requirements after that that would preclude an alien choosing to live in the USA. You are ignoring that which is articulated in the INA. I suppose, after a short-term marriage, presumably you determine that there is a lack of longevity to the marriage, in the case of an alien whose USC spouse has died abruptly, would you use the same rationale?

[tito 1]

It's an option that I, for one, think should be utilized more by the immigrant. If a marriage doesn't work out, the immigration was marriage-based, and there's been no green card issued, what IS the guarantee of a green card? Why IS there a sense of entitlement? While the bona fides of a marriage is the threshold inquiry, short of the green card, what options are available? Self-apply by virtue of abuse, whether actual or contrived? Just leave the spouse hanging, and then go after him or her for support?

One of the points I'm trying to make is that, if the immigrant feels as though he or she has given up so much to come here with the hopes of a wonderful married life, and the marriage falls apart for whatever reason, or the immigrant is disillusioned for whatever reason, what, really, did the immigrant give up? That life that they left a matter of months before is still there...the one they knew, the one they loved, the one they regretted leaving...it's an option for them to return!

In the case of a deceased spouse, the basis for the immigration is still intact. There's no question as to the bona fides of the ongoing, viable marriage that would support the immigration. In other circumstances, the immigrant finds that she's not too happy being married (for whatever reason), and still wants to stay and often will resort to doing or saying anything to secure the privilege of immigration, all the while complaining about everything they left behind in a sacrifice to come here. HOGWASH! What was left behind is still there and readily available to the immigrant. There is no entitlement to immigration just because they came over here to get married. There should be something to support the basis for immigration and permanent residency.

That's my view; that's my opinion; that's my question...agree or disagree.

[Mags 112]

All irrelevant posts have been made invisible. Please stay on topic, please.

[pushbrk 12,821]

In the case of a deceased spouse, the basis for the immigration is still intact. There's no question as to the bona fides of the ongoing, viable marriage that would support the immigration. In other circumstances, the immigrant finds that she's not too happy being married (for whatever reason), and still wants to stay and often will resort to doing or saying anything to secure the privilege of immigration, all the while complaining about everything they left behind in a sacrifice to come here. HOGWASH! What was left behind is still there and readily available to the immigrant. There is no entitlement to immigration just because they came over here to get married. There should be something to support the basis for immigration and permanent residency.

That's my view; that's my opinion; that's my question...agree or disagree.

Actually the decision to come to the USA and marry carries with it the intention to immigrate. As such, many do not have the life they left to go back to. They've left their jobs and homes, perhaps sold their belongings cheap, and perhaps burned bridges in their carreer.

Immigration was part of the deal.

[StillThePrettiest 3]

very succinct, and right on the money

[j4k 0]

And don't forget, OP, report your scamming layabout "friend" to SSI. They actively investigate all reports of scammers, and can, in time, pull his dead useless ### off the US government nipple.

AMEN! this guy is a leech to society...with fake disability...selling drugs that the state provides him to people on the street, living in low income housing practically rent free...this really pi$$es me off he is a low-life scumbag...if for some reason he were to be turned in and put away, what happens to her then? Getting him put away would be priority #1 in my book. He is a criminal, based on the information provided by the OP.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

It's an option that I, for one, think should be utilized more by the immigrant. If a marriage doesn't work out, the immigration was marriage-based, and there's been no green card issued, what IS the guarantee of a green card? Why IS there a sense of entitlement? While the bona fides of a marriage is the threshold inquiry, short of the green card, what options are available? Self-apply by virtue of abuse, whether actual or contrived? Just leave the spouse hanging, and then go after him or her for support?

One of the points I'm trying to make is that, if the immigrant feels as though he or she has given up so much to come here with the hopes of a wonderful married life, and the marriage falls apart for whatever reason, or the immigrant is disillusioned for whatever reason, what, really, did the immigrant give up? That life that they left a matter of months before is still there...the one they knew, the one they loved, the one they regretted leaving...it's an option for them to return!

In the case of a deceased spouse, the basis for the immigration is still intact. There's no question as to the bona fides of the ongoing, viable marriage that would support the immigration. In other circumstances, the immigrant finds that she's not too happy being married (for whatever reason), and still wants to stay and often will resort to doing or saying anything to secure the privilege of immigration, all the while complaining about everything they left behind in a sacrifice to come here. HOGWASH! What was left behind is still there and readily available to the immigrant. There is no entitlement to immigration just because they came over here to get married. There should be something to support the basis for immigration and permanent residency.

That's my view; that's my opinion; that's my question...agree or disagree.

This is an absurd answer. Firstly, the OP in this case has a conditional green card. So, your comment that an alien should consider the option of going home because no green card has been issued, simply doesn't apply here. Secondly, I fail to see the distinction you are attempting to make between a marriage that ends due to divorce and a marriage that ends due to the death of a petitioner in so far as this proposed "entitlement" that you suggest the alien does nnot and should not have.

Let's get some facts straight, as far as the INA goes, for starters. Yes, the alien's right to petition to reside in the USA is only available as a direct result of being married to a USC. If the alien is in a viable marriage at the time of the adjustment on status interview, short any other complications, the alien is awarded PR. If the marriage should end shortly thereafter, due to divorce, the alien can preserve his or her immigration process by demonstrating the bonafides of marriage, to include the couples intent on sharing a home and financial obligations as long as they were indeed married. As you know, in this country especially, many states have resorted to no-fault divorces. As such, how in goodness name are you, or any of us, going to be able to know who was at fault in the marriage breakdown? Was it the alien? Or was it due to some fault on the part of the USC? So, why, if the alien were not at fault should he or she suffer the additional burdern and ignominy of having to be shuffled out of here like a package. It's bad enough losing one's future dreams, in the event of a failed relationshiop, God knows what it would be like to face all of those emotional ups and downs and then have to also uproot and reroot elsewhere! Not that is doesn't happen, mind you...but it certainly should not be a requirement, unless the alien fails to demonstrate that the marriage was genuine.

But back to my point....you say that an alien married for only a short time to a USC that undergoes the horror of losing a spouse to a premature death should be handed PR because the marriage was 'ongoing and viable. Well, what of the alien, who unwittingly married the consummate philanderer who comes home one night with a new babe on his arm and decides to divorce the faithful alien? Wasn't she contributing to a viable and on-going union too?

Your reasoning, in my opinion, is faulty at best, or appears to be tailored to suit a personal agenda!