Visa Fraud- Using B-2 with intention to immigrate

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

There are many, many cases where there is no fraud, and yes, it is currently legal. But there's also good reasons why it should discontinued, at least from VWP or B tourist visas because it does allow for abuse. Although I personally have no problems with adjusting from other visa categories, when someone has already been living here longterm.

I don't know how it could be discontinued. Honestly.

Can you think of a fair way?

I don't see it being that difficult - the UK passed a law in 2005 requiring people who did not have Indefinite Leave to Remain to get a fiance visa or a Certificate of Approval in order to get married in the country. Those that were there as tourists must leave and get a fiance visa, those that had Limited Leave To Remain (could include students, people on work visas) had to get the Ccertificate of Approval - and they had to have at least 3 months remaining on LLR in order to qualify. You can apply for soemthing like "Exceptional Compassionate circumstances" if you have some reason that you can not travel, but I don't think that would include failure to rebook a flight after the one you were on was cancelled because of bad weather.

[Donna A 4]

because there are people first of all who cant get visas to come be with their loved one while waiting it out in their own country and the ones who can come easily to visit stay and never go thru seperation. is that fair to the ones who have to wait in line for their day? no of course not.

thats just an excuse this person used for not leaving. not a good enough excuse to cut in line. there would be other days they could leave. just because it didnt happen right now doesnt mean it wouldnt have happened at all.

[rebeccajo 14]

There are many, many cases where there is no fraud, and yes, it is currently legal. But there's also good reasons why it should discontinued, at least from VWP or B tourist visas because it does allow for abuse. Although I personally have no problems with adjusting from other visa categories, when someone has already been living here longterm.

I don't know how it could be discontinued. Honestly.

Can you think of a fair way?

I don't see it being that difficult - the UK passed a law in 2005 requiring people who did not have Indefinite Leave to Remain to get a fiance visa or a Certificate of Approval in order to get married in the country. Those that were there as tourists must leave and get a fiance visa, those that had Limited Leave To Remain (could include students, people on work visas) had to get the Ccertificate of Approval - and they had to have at least 3 months remaining on LLR in order to qualify. You can apply for soemthing like "Exceptional Compassionate circumstances" if you have some reason that you can not travel, but I don't think that would include failure to rebook a flight after the one you were on was cancelled because of bad weather.

Yes, I'm aware the UK passed that law. Personally I think it's a bit invasive of personal freedoms. But that's the difference between a constitutional democracy and a parliamentary one. Please don't think I say that as some sort of 'slam' at your government because I happen to think it's a marvelous one. But we both know without the personal protections of a constitution, a parliamentary system can more easily take away individual rights.

There nothing in the US Constitution that says we can marry someone from another country and they can live here. That's not guaranteed and I've made that point many times over. So yes, our legislators would be perfectly able to craft such a law for us.

But I'd hate to see it as I don't think a government makes that type of law for the same reasons readers to this forum would like to see it. I'm fairly confident the law you describe in the UK was created with the intent to keep immigrants out, not couples from 'cutting in line'. It's a dark card, IMO.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

How is requiring a fiance visa taking away individual rights and personal freedoms?

The fiance visa requirement came at the same time as extending visas to people in civil partnerships and include homosexual relationships. That's hardly anything to do with "keeping immigrants out." Immigrants were welcome, they just needed the right visa to marry.

[rebeccajo 14]

its not fraud or abusing the system but it is making excuses not to leave. just cuz he was stranded for a few days doesnt mean he will be stuck here forever. its not a life and death situation to wait and go back and wait for the k-1 to finish processing. no one likes to be seperated from their loved one but no one likes it either when someone cuts in line either.

Interesting responses.

It's a true story. But I think some of you are assuming what the conclusion was to the story.

It happened to us. But he went home.

I think the reactions here are interesting. Had my husband chosen to stay, his actions would have been fully within what is permissible under the law (as we understand it). Intent to immigrate is about intent at the last entry - not your life plan.

I only brought it up to allow us an enlightened discussion. What we all think or believe or wish may be one thing, but what is permissible under the law may be another. Where does a society that believes in personal liberties and freedoms draw the line?

It's just food for thought. Not an argument.

How is requiring a fiance visa taking away individual rights and personal freedoms?

The fiance visa requirement came at the same time as extending visas to people in civil partnerships and include homosexual relationships. That's hardly anything to do with "keeping immigrants out." Immigrants were welcome, they just needed the right visa to marry.

Are you suggesting to me that the UK also wasn't trying to take care of a little immigration problem while they were at it?

Edited July 1, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Are you suggesting to me that the UK also wasn't trying to take care of a little immigration problem while they were at it?

They were probably trying to bring more oversight to prevent fraudulent marriages, yes, but I don't have a problem with that. The requirement is not there to stop people from immigrating to marry.

I know someone who married on VWP to circumvent having to provide a police report (they had minor drugs charges in the UK) required of a K visa. They got through AOS without a hitch and probably got the green card faster than they would had they applied for a K visa, never mind the need to apply for a waiver.

Edited July 1, 2008 by rkl57

[rebeccajo 14]

Are you suggesting to me that the UK also wasn't trying to take care of a little immigration problem while they were at it?

They were probably trying to bring more oversight to prevent fraudulent marriages, yes, but I don't have a problem with that. The requirement is not there to stop people from immigrating to marry.

I know someone who married on VWP to circumvent having to provide a police report (they had minor drugs charges in the UK) required of a K visa. They got through AOS without a hitch and probably got the green card faster than they would had they applied for a K visa, never mind the need to apply for a waiver.

I've bolded your last comment because I agree here that there's some REAL inconsistencies that happen with stateside adjustments that bug me more than 'cutting in line'. You and I may be thinking of the same person - we may not - but it's patently unfair to put visa applicants through the ringer for 'petty crimes' and not even ASK the same questions if they adjust internally. But that's not a law change that is needed - that's a procedural change for USCIS.

As regards eliminating the ability to adjust from the VWP/B2 with the 'real goal' being to curtail fraudulent marriage, personally, I'd rather see our government stick to interviewing VWP/B2 adjustees rather than set ANOTHER bar which couples have to cross if they wish to live here in our country.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Are you suggesting to me that the UK also wasn't trying to take care of a little immigration problem while they were at it?

They were probably trying to bring more oversight to prevent fraudulent marriages, yes, but I don't have a problem with that. The requirement is not there to stop people from immigrating to marry.

I know someone who married on VWP to circumvent having to provide a police report (they had minor drugs charges in the UK) required of a K visa. They got through AOS without a hitch and probably got the green card faster than they would had they applied for a K visa, never mind the need to apply for a waiver.

I've bolded your last comment because I agree here that there's some REAL inconsistencies that happen with stateside adjustments that bug me more than 'cutting in line'. You and I may be thinking of the same person - we may not - but it's patently unfair to put visa applicants through the ringer for 'petty crimes' and not even ASK the same questions if they adjust internally. But that's not a law change that is needed - that's a procedural change for USCIS.

And it's the basis of my objection to tourist adjusters. It also makes it more difficult for honest visitors to get tourist visas and increases the likeliness of denials at POE for VWP. Why even have the K visa?

[rebeccajo 14]

Are you suggesting to me that the UK also wasn't trying to take care of a little immigration problem while they were at it?

They were probably trying to bring more oversight to prevent fraudulent marriages, yes, but I don't have a problem with that. The requirement is not there to stop people from immigrating to marry.

I know someone who married on VWP to circumvent having to provide a police report (they had minor drugs charges in the UK) required of a K visa. They got through AOS without a hitch and probably got the green card faster than they would had they applied for a K visa, never mind the need to apply for a waiver.

I've bolded your last comment because I agree here that there's some REAL inconsistencies that happen with stateside adjustments that bug me more than 'cutting in line'. You and I may be thinking of the same person - we may not - but it's patently unfair to put visa applicants through the ringer for 'petty crimes' and not even ASK the same questions if they adjust internally. But that's not a law change that is needed - that's a procedural change for USCIS.

And it's the basis of my objection to tourist adjusters. It also makes it more difficult for honest visitors to get tourist visas and increases the likeliness of denials at POE for VWP. Why even have the K visa?

Well, because everyone can't arrive on the VWP or get a tourist visa, I guess.

So you are saying it's the police report that gives you pause? Or other procedures? As I said above, I hear ya loud and clear on the police report.

[gogo 6]

for example,.. China.. you think a young girl (like my wife) can get a tourist visa now? :crying: They block almost 99% of all cases whenever they see a young girl like herself.. she can probably visit other countries beside USA.. maybe we should live elsewhere...I don't care if she comes on a work visa now..

Edited July 1, 2008 by gogo

[IAMX 3,055]

I certainly understand people's complaints about waiting, but unless you really know the situation, to me it's very selfish to judge someone else's position without knowing everything.

The reason I would not feel bad whatsoever about circumventing it is because so many do it. I got this strange look when I told my lawyer and his staff I was filing a K1 rather than doing a tourist visa+marriage+AOS, then he, metaphorically, dusted off the K1 books and we filled one out since I felt the risk, however minute, wasn't worth the negative possibilities. So I decided to go with the K1 and I don't regret it at all. However, others don't have the same issues as I do, and can't wait. Maybe there are issues in the local country which are unbearable.

Then, when I hear people moaning about legality I ask if they've ever jaywalked, if they've ever sped more than 20mph past the speed limit, run a red light, drove illegally in the carpool lane, stolen something valuable (worth more than $200-$400), downloaded something illegally, got in a fight and hurt someone, etc., because all of those are illegal and in some cases have a heavy punishment. Yet I guarantee most if not all have done something illegal, some badly illegal. It isn't that we need to go through the list and say what we have or haven't done (cough), the point is while I may be jealous of those who went the AOS route, I certainly won't look down my nose at them because they weren't a saint about how they filed for it. It's just people trying to be together.

[sara..... 371]

if they come here and fall in love and marry then no visa fraud..........they come here on visitor visa intending to marry then its visa fraud it was thought out in advance and exicuted

it makes it hard on those of us waiting so long trying to get even k1 visa.......perviz comes from a very dangerous area of kashmir so it is not like i dont understand those that want to marry on visitor visa when they come ...i also understand wanting to be with the one u love and thinking the world will surely come to an end if u have to wait so long but it dont ....some couples dont last thru the long process of waiting and who knows maybe perviz and i wont either stress is very hard on any relationship.........but what it does to those that follow those that so freely used the visitor visa for marraige is pretty much shut out the citizens of those countries from receiving visitor visa ......for every action there is a reaction .......and in many cases such as the kashmiri and others from India and many other countries that had a high number of visitor visas where the citizen of that country did not return but found a way to stay in the USA is make it almost impossible for the citizens of that country to receive any kind of visa other than k1 or marraige visa

[rebeccajo 14]

Sarah, I hear what you are saying and agree that it's prior abuse of the VWP that makes it hard to get visitors visas. I believe Venezuela used to have VWP status but lost the priviledge due to conclusive evidence that it's citizens were abusing it.

I've always been real honest and admitted that Wes and I considered just 'using' the VWP. But we were afraid of being the occasional rare case that an example is made of. There are few couples with a VWP spouse who would be able to tell you they didn't consider the option if they are also honest. It's a temptation and it's out there.

TBH, I never wanted to do anything to jeopardize Wes being able to freely move in and out of the US. I wanted everything we did to protect his status. God forbid our marriage should fall apart, or I should die, and he return to Northern Ireland. If we mishandled his immigration status, he could find trouble in the future. That might sound like negativity, but I don't feel that way.

I think if you abuse the system in any way, you are potentially jeopardizing your foreign-born spouses immigration path. And that ain't love - not in my book.

[sara..... 371]

Sarah, I hear what you are saying and agree that it's prior abuse of the VWP that makes it hard to get visitors visas. I believe Venezuela used to have VWP status but lost the priviledge due to conclusive evidence that it's citizens were abusing it.

I've always been real honest and admitted that Wes and I considered just 'using' the VWP. But we were afraid of being the occasional rare case that an example is made of. There are few couples with a VWP spouse who would be able to tell you they didn't consider the option if they are also honest. It's a temptation and it's out there.

TBH, I never wanted to do anything to jeopardize Wes being able to freely move in and out of the US. I wanted everything we did to protect his status. God forbid our marriage should fall apart, or I should die, and he return to Northern Ireland. If we mishandled his immigration status, he could find trouble in the future. That might sound like negativity, but I don't feel that way.

I think if you abuse the system in any way, you are potentially jeopardizing your foreign-born spouses immigration path. And that ain't love - not in my book.

[panamania79 2]

Just wanted to know your thoughts on couples using a tourist visa to get married in the U.S. and being able to apply for AOS, EVEN when they did have ALL the prior intention to use the tourist visa to immigrate to the U.S. permanently.

It just upsets me sooo much everytime I hear of someone else taking this "shortcut" and getting away with it! I just had a discussion with some guy in another forum on this subject and he was so cool about it, he said they'd rather take the risk of being accused of visa fraud, because "the K-1 route is too long and does not adjust to their plans", and he disagrees with the immigration laws! What the heck???!!!!

Don't you all feel like everytime they let someone get away with this, it's like a slap on the faces of those of us who chose to do the righ the thing?

Would they ever change the regulations so it's not possible to apply for AOS if you got married on a B2? Or even if it remains possible why don't they put these couples to a stronger scrutinity? I've heard many people doing this, and not having ANY sort of problem during the interview! Some of us who chose the legal way, had a harder time on our interviews than they had!

It is just soooo upsetting! And so unfair! I come to VJ every day, and see so many couples dealing with all the pressures and stress of interviews at the Consulates, and hear their stories about the CO's putting people on reviews, or calling them for a second interview or even getting denied for stupid or not valid reasons, and on the other hand I see all these law breakers, using the B-2 route to immigrate and getting away with it, and it just irks me!!!

I know a few people who have done this.My opinion is if you can find a way around all the USCIS's BS,more power to you !