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

[diadromous mermaid 36]

"please explain to me why we see so many threads here and on other immigration message boards asking how they may be able to remain if the marriage goes awry?"

BINGO!!!!! That's exactly my point. Why the heck ARE there so many inquiries? Why is that the first and most important option???

And no...fault is irrelevant. It's a risk, and the question is, what happens if things don't work out? Why is immigration virtually automatic? Why ISN'T going home an option?

Thank you for crystallizing the issue. Come to the US, get married, things don't work out...what are the options? (i) go back home; or (ii) fight like heck to get that green card! If things are so bad, and the immigrant laments leaving their life behind (one that's still there, mind you...), what is wrong with (i)? And why does anyone thing that (ii) is something to which the immigrant is entitled? Then, you throw this stuff in about how the USC is on the hook for support to the tune of $1,200 - $1,500 a month for 10 years...!

I give up! . You are conflating your personal "perception" with reality! In fact, I'll go one more step and say it's my perception to you are totally out of touch with reality. By the way, perhaps your faulty perception would be improved if you walked in an alien's shoes for a while. Drop everything, give up your retirement benefits and professional associations, dump your house in a bad retail market, and trot off to some country for a couple of years, then be told you had to come back to the USA. Where would your purchasing power, career, and/or practice be then?

I am not in support of anyone viewing PR as an entitlement. It is a benefit given to the alien, on behalf of the USC. But just because a marriage terminates that doesn't mean to say that the USC is best-served if the alien is shipped back home. What if a hypothetical case involves an alien and a USC with children? What is in the USC's best interests there? You are thinking too narrowly...and for your line of work, that could be dangerous!

You had a bad experience, yes, it happens. In fact, I had a bad experience...but thank goodness I didn't turn out like this. I can see the distinction between those that have earned a benefit and those that have not.

[Barbara y Alexis 1]

Make her call the hotline....she needs your help.

How will you feel if the next time you see her she has a black eye, broken bones, or is dead?????

Don't let yourself off the hook. She needs help.

I know there are provisions for wives of guys who come in on work visas if they are abused so that they can leave the husband but not have to go back home ... it was happening in Silicon Valley with engineers and the wives were battered and scared. It is not right.

Stand up for this woman and document everything everything...let the police know in advance because he may get angry with you as well.

[StillThePrettiest 3]

...the immigrant laments leaving their life behind (one that's still there, mind you...)

to focus on just ONE piece of rubbish:

as I have explained before, once I have left my life here in England, IT WILL NO LONGER BE HERE

I will have

1) not renewed my working visa, and therefore be out of status in the UK

2) resigned from TWO jobs, one of which I have built up to such a degree that they're advertising for full-time when I'm only three days at present

3) given up my place in a share house (with good low rent)

4) closed my bank accounts, dropped various memberships and schemes and similar

5) spent a LOT of money on shipping and airfares and similar - more than I can really afford, and which is taking away from mortgage repayments, so there is NO WAY I could repeat it in a hurry

6) lost a pension plan

now, if that's just one person's example (and I've only mentioned the main things, above), can you maybe see that there might be others like me? and if so, can you please STOP with this ridiculous, obtuse, and frankly insulting guff about how easy it would be just to waltz back and take up where we left off? gad, as mox said above somewhere: you have some great knowledge, and it COULD be of real help to people here, but you let your personal agenda take over, and you just make yourself ridiculous

ETA: and Mermaid got in before me

thank you, DM

Edited February 10, 2008 by StillThePrettiest

[tito 1]

Quite interesting that you find all of this so personally offensive, and that you are so righteously indignant to the point of calling me names and accusing me of all sorts of things about which you have no idea. Welcome to the US! I hope you enjoy your stay.

Back to the issue, if I were to take such a subsnantial risk of leaving everything behind to move to another country to start a life, I'd be darned sure that I knew exactly what I was getting into. I'd also have a back-up plan, and the first part of it would certainly NOT be how can I secure permanent residency status in this new place. The first line of inquiry would be, if a problem arises, how will I best be able to protect myself and return to the life I left behind? Things didn't work out in the destination? Why in the world would I ever want to stay there???!?! I have my family I can go back to, I can rent an apartment, get a job in a field in which I am trained, make a living, and at least I'm on terra firma...and familiar ground...where I know the streets, the lay of the land, my rights, my history, the name of my representative and senator in Congress...all the things that are important to me. All those things you, in your particular example, left behind...they are absolutely not irrevocable. You'd be engaging in doing the same thing both where you came from and where you ended up. You'd have to get a job; you'd have to establish credit; you'd have to find a place to live; you'd have to open bank accounts; you'd have to set up a retirement plan; you'd have to get a visa...the list goes on...BUT - at least you'd be among those for whom you care the most, not in a strange place with strange people that left a bad taste in your mouth because of all the sacrifices you made for things to blow up in your face!!

No personal agenda whatsoever. I feel that, if things don't work out, the first inquiry should be how to go home, not how to secure residency...because there is no entitlement (or should not be in my view...and that's the basis of what I've been saying all along).

If you want to discuss the issues, fine, but you could do without the personal affronts. I certainly did or said nothing to offend you personally except express my opinion regarding the options of an immigrant. You disagree. I get it. No need to be nasty, righteous AND indignant.

Edited February 10, 2008 by tito

[diadromous mermaid 36]

Quite interesting that you find all of this so personally offensive, and that you are so righteously indignant to the point of calling me names and accusing me of all sorts of things about which you have no idea. Welcome to the US! I hope you enjoy your stay.

Back to the issue, if I were to take such a subsnantial risk of leaving everything behind to move to another country to start a life, I'd be darned sure that I knew exactly what I was getting into. I'd also have a back-up plan, and the first part of it would certainly NOT be how can I secure permanent residency status in this new place. The first line of inquiry would be, if a problem arises, how will I best be able to protect myself and return to the life I left behind? Things didn't work out in the destination? Why in the world would I ever want to stay there???!?! I have my family I can go back to, I can rent an apartment, get a job in a field in which I am trained, make a living, and at least I'm on terra firma...and familiar ground...where I know the streets, the lay of the land, my rights, my history, the name of my representative and senator in Congress...all the things that are important to me. All those things you, in your particular example, left behind...they are absolutely not irrevocable. You'd be engaging in doing the same thing both where you came from and where you ended up. You'd have to get a job; you'd have to establish credit; you'd have to find a place to live; you'd have to open bank accounts; you'd have to set up a retirement plan; you'd have to get a visa...the list goes on...BUT - at least you'd be among those for whom you care the most, not in a strange place with strange people that left a bad taste in your mouth because of all the sacrifices you made for things to blow up in your face!!

If you want to discuss the issues, fine, but you could do without the personal affronts. I certainly did or said nothing to offend you personally except express my opinion regarding the options of an immigrant. You disagree. I get it. No need to be nasty, righteous AND indignant.

tito,

There's absolutely no doubt that in some instances, perhaps in many instances, an alien could get reacclimated more quickly in their homeland. But to declare that this should be a first consideration in view of the risk that the USC has taken is wholly shortsighted. I sense you are superimposing your perception of what is important to many aliens and what you believe their right should be, and I personally think that is hazardous and it certainly contraverts the statutes. For example, in the case of a short-term marriage gone awry, the alien must reinvest to get back home, and many times this is simply not possible without the cooperation of the spouse for whom the relocation was undertaken in the first place. While you seem to be disinclined to consider fault, if we were to consider your view, the only way to fairly do so would be to take into considerations the actions that brought the marital relationship to an end.

In the case of an alien that deceived a USC spouse from inception, I think you'll find NO argument that the alien has no right to remain in this country. The statutes so declare and in just about all instances, where this can be proven, the statutes speak "plainly and unmistakably". After all, were it not for his or her deceit, they'd not be in this country to begin with, and the USC would not have sponsored the alien if he or she had an inkling of the alien's true intentions.

But what of the other situations, where the alien had bonafide intentions of pursuing a lifelong relationship with his or her citizen sponsor and did not engage in any act that placed the marital union in jeopardy? In todays day and age, it takes nothing to dismantle a marriage, in most jurisdictions. One must only declare that the union has broken down to the point that it cannot be salvaged. Is that always true? Not really. It is only sufficiently broken down such that ONE party declares it irreparable. Unfortunately, in such cases, the respondent, or innocent party has nothing more to do but to accept the termination of the union. Often times, with short-term marriages, with little to no appreciation distributed to the alien as a result. If one were to consider that act, and to bear in mind that permanent residency of the alien (innocent party) is at the whim of the US citizen petitioner in a divorce action, why would you think it appropriate that such an individual, through no fault of their own, should be forced to leave a place where they could have spent the last 3 years?

The regulation, itself, imposes appropriate onus upon the alien to demonstrate his or her privilege to remain. That's how I see it is and how it should continue to be. And by the way, I've seen many instances where individuals have announced their intentions to fabricate a claim of abuse in order to try to remain, only to find that in order to prevail requires significant substantive evidence. Evidence that is not so easy to gather ex facto, and evidence that is much beyond a simple affidavit.

P.S. By any chance was your SO from South America? You remind me an awful lot of a former member I encountered in the past.

[tito 1]

No, nobody from South America.

The situation I'm referring to is one where the presence of the immigrant is not one of 3 years, where they establish a life here...I'm talking about shorter term situations, like the one in this thread...where the poster said the immigrant was here a month, with full knowledge of the character of the spouse (that she may or may not have ignored simply with the intention of getting to the US no matter the price she might pay). Here, she had a green card, so she's here and that's it.

You say that it would be difficult for the immigrant to secure passage home. Well, if they can't do that, how are they going to pay for their medical expenses, food, transportation, housing or, heaven forbid, they get a car and injure someone else and have no insurance? If they are able to stick around and assume those expenses and risks, then they can sure as heck afford a flight home, no matter WHERE they are. Why should US taxpayers have to pay for these types of follies, where the immigrant can't afford a flight home, but incurs expenses and assumes risks in the US? THIS IS THE ISSUE I HAVE! Bona fide intentions or not, the immigrant, AND the USC, take a risk. But that risk should not, then, be foist upon society in general, which takes us back to the declaration of support discussion.

Things don't work out? Consider as a threshold question going back home. That was my statement in my first post in this thread, and the sentiment has not wavered. It's an option.

Edited February 10, 2008 by tito

[tito 1]

"The regulation, itself, imposes appropriate onus upon the alien to demonstrate his or her privilege to remain. That's how I see it is and how it should continue to be. And by the way, I've seen many instances where individuals have announced their intentions to fabricate a claim of abuse in order to try to remain, only to find that in order to prevail requires significant substantive evidence. Evidence that is not so easy to gather ex facto, and evidence that is much beyond a simple affidavit. "

That's the way it should be, too. Regarding the evidence...it really doesn't take that much, and the immigrant is afforded quite a bit of latitude when it comes to making the claim that would afford them the right to self-apply. As I understand, the process often involves deportation proceedings, and the claim of abuse is used as a defense. That gives the immigrant a little bit of leverage, and the immigration courts are fairly lenient given the fact that the immigrant might not know his or her rights, that they needed this or that to present to the court...so it's not that difficult a burden.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

"The regulation, itself, imposes appropriate onus upon the alien to demonstrate his or her privilege to remain. That's how I see it is and how it should continue to be. And by the way, I've seen many instances where individuals have announced their intentions to fabricate a claim of abuse in order to try to remain, only to find that in order to prevail requires significant substantive evidence. Evidence that is not so easy to gather ex facto, and evidence that is much beyond a simple affidavit. "

That's the way it should be, too. Regarding the evidence...it really doesn't take that much, and the immigrant is afforded quite a bit of latitude when it comes to making the claim that would afford them the right to self-apply. As I understand, the process often involves deportation proceedings, and the claim of abuse is used as a defense. That gives the immigrant a little bit of leverage, and the immigration courts are fairly lenient given the fact that the immigrant might not know his or her rights, that they needed this or that to present to the court...so it's not that difficult a burden.

Are you speaking from facts, or once again an impression you have? The process of attempting to adjust status and remaining in the USA as a self-petitioner who has not yet received a green card is a long and drawn out process. In fact, it can take years. The evidentiary requirements exceed a claim. They require proof.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

The situation I'm referring to is one where the presence of the immigrant is not one of 3 years, where they establish a life here...I'm talking about shorter term situations, like the one in this thread...where the poster said the immigrant was here a month....

In the instant case, the alien may only have been here a month, but had been married for a full 2 years prior to activiting the visa and status being conferred. I see it not as the time spent here in the USA, and of becoming familiar and settled in this country, but rather of time invested in a relationship, with natural expectations and history. Two plus years of marriage (I'll accept that there are indications that the alien may have known of the USC's proclivity, notwithstanding) is not a month, as you are implying.

[mox 298]

You say that it would be difficult for the immigrant to secure passage home. Well, if they can't do that, how are they going to pay for their medical expenses, food, transportation, housing or, heaven forbid, they get a car and injure someone else and have no insurance? If they are able to stick around and assume those expenses and risks, then they can sure as heck afford a flight home, no matter WHERE they are.

It's more than just a plane ticket tito. Many simply have *no* life to go back to. I don't know how many people have to tell you this, or how many ways they have to say it. As a (presumably) white male making whatever lawyers make in your area of the world, you have a LOT more options than a woman in PI who made the unforgivable mistake of falling in love with a USC.

Why should US taxpayers have to pay for these types of follies, where the immigrant can't afford a flight home, but incurs expenses and assumes risks in the US? THIS IS THE ISSUE I HAVE! Bona fide intentions or not, the immigrant, AND the USC, take a risk. But that risk should not, then, be foist upon society in general, which takes us back to the declaration of support discussion.

US taxpayers takes a risk with every immigrant who enters this country. However, you should consider that the VAST MAJORITY of immigrants are a net benefit to our society, even the immigrants who fall under your umbrella of characterization.

As a US taxpayer, I'd be horrified to bring a woman over, have one of our own abuse and brutalize her, and then send her back saying "too bad, so sad, but the circumstances you originally entered under have changed." Fortunately some law makers in the past agreed with me and setup provisions for women in just this type of circumstance to make the best of a bad situation.

And I agree with you that the non-USC should at least consider going home, and if these boards are of any evidence, many MANY do go back. But you argue as if this is the only option, which is no option at all.

[j4k 0]

Social Security does not hand out benefits for Fake Disabilities.

if you actually believe that, you're living in egypt... there are too many who abuse the system.

[truffles 2]

I am unsure if the person concerned entered as a K1 or K3 or other....however in view of the fact her now husband had such a bad criminal record would he not have had to declare this on his application?

As for being returning to home country - i agree that i would not be able to return to my home country exactly as i left it...but i am afraid thats the risk i take as one door closes another one opens ....actions and consequences ....i would however still have my friends and family and they would help me with immediate problems such as housing temperarily ...thats why i invested more time in the relationship before committing ... to make sure what i was seeing wasnt just someone on his best behaviour for a one off time - especially important if you have peole who care for you asking you to reconsider. Whats that saying...marry in haste repent at leisure.

You are dealing with an adult - it seems she was given loads of relevant guidance - but chose to marry this man...so it is everyone elses fault she has poor judgement? Sounds like she may well be safer in her home country if this man is as unbalanced as he seems.

I certainly do not condone violence - and she certainly must receive immediate refuge and safe haven from this man ...but ultimately wether she should stay or go....?

I know there are some who will flame me for this ...and so be it....i would remind everyone though - this is a forum and we live in a democracy which supports the rights to free speech - regardless if it falls in or out with your own view or not.

[archie07 0]

Social Security does not hand out benefits for Fake Disabilities.

if you actually believe that, you're living in egypt... there are too many who abuse the system.

Extensive documentation of the disability sometimes still will result in a denial of benefits. I've been in court for disability claims. A lawyer will not represent a client with a fake injury and a judge won't award a claim. Apparently, someone has misinformed you and the op as to how the social security disability system awards benefits to disabled people since you both believe a disability can be faked. A back disability would require x-rays, ct scans, Mri,s before that person had any chance of collecting a benefit.

[N400-2011 24]

I am at (almost) a complete loss of words at how this thread is going. It is clear that some persons have their perceptions mixed up because of (maybe) personal history. All I can say is that in my experience, life is not always filled with simple choices or decisions. I have had a rough go at it, but I am still standing.

To the OP: Good luck to your cousin. Her first priority is her safety!

Edited February 11, 2008 by Vawa-2006

[Donna A 4]

actually she might not have anything to go back to but does she really have anything here either except her cousin? me personally i would want to go back to my family instead of staying where i might be beat on til death.