K1-US citizen?

[sony123 0]

I am a US citizen, and my boyfriend is on (OPT status), he was previously on F-1 and has graduated. He has had some bad luck finding a job with the recession and his OPT runs out in September 2010. We have been "dating" for 2 years, however our families have known each other for ages. Is there anyway that we can file for a readjustment of status (K1) without him having to leave the country?

[TracyTN 237]

A K1 visa is not a readjustment of status. The only way he can adjust status through you and not leave the country is for the two of you to get married.

If you do that, he'll have to be able to prove he did not have immigrant intent when he entered on his F1. Probably not difficult to do, but be aware that the onus will be on him to prove it.

[pushbrk 13,044]

A K1 visa is not a readjustment of status. The only way he can adjust status through you and not leave the country is for the two of you to get married.

If you do that, he'll have to be able to prove he did not have immigrant intent when he entered on his F1. Probably not difficult to do, but be aware that the onus will be on him to prove it.

Right, K1 does nothing for you and since it's a visa, (Visas are used to enter countries.) it cannot be obtained inside the USA. If he wants to stay as your husband, marry him and adjust his status to permanent resident. Follow the AOS guide here once you're married.

[john_and_marlene 162]

A K1 visa is not a readjustment of status. The only way he can adjust status through you and not leave the country is for the two of you to get married.

If you do that, he'll have to be able to prove he did not have immigrant intent when he entered on his F1. Probably not difficult to do, but be aware that the onus will be on him to prove it.

No, he will not have to prove anything about his intent. If you get married, just file the I-130 petition along with your adjustment of status application.

[TracyTN 237]

No, he will not have to prove anything about his intent. If you get married, just file the I-130 petition along with your adjustment of status application.

That's what I've always read about adjusting from a student visa. The way it was explained to me was because an F1 is not dual intent.

One example I found in a quick search:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=144653

I've seen the same said on other boards as well.

[john_and_marlene 162]

That's what I've always read about adjusting from a student visa. The way it was explained to me was because an F1 is not dual intent.

One example I found in a quick search:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=144653

I've seen the same said on other boards as well.

VWP is not dual intent yet people adjust status following a VWP entry all the time

B2 is not dual intent yet people adjust status following a B2 entry all the time

Canadian visitor entries are not dual intent yet people adjust status following a B2 entry all the time.

There are 2 important factors in this specific case:

1. They would be married to a USC

2. Case law that says the immediate relative of a USC cannot be denied adjustment of status based on prior intent to immigrate.

If you search for similar cases where the adjustment was denied, you will not find one in recent history (since 1980) that was denied for prior intent where the beneficiary was the immediate relative of a USC. If you find denials, a close inspection of the case will reveal that other factors caused the denial. They can deny the adjustment if they feel the marriage was for the sole purpose of evading immigration law (fraudulent marriage), but it won't be because of the prior intent.

[TracyTN 237]

I didn't say they couldn't adjust status from an F1 - meaning that they aren't eligible to do so.

All I said was that intent is something they look at when adjusting from an F1. They do the same when adjusting from VWP adjustments, for example -- they want to make sure someone hadn't quit their job, sold their home abroad, emptied bank accounts, etc. prior to arriving in the US. If all is how it seems, then it isn't an issue at all.

2. Case law that says the immediate relative of a USC cannot be denied adjustment of status based on prior intent to immigrate.

If this is the case, then I wonder how they get away with denying people who have entered on VWP because it has happened.

[john_and_marlene 162]

I didn't say they couldn't adjust status from an F1 - meaning that they aren't eligible to do so.

All I said was that intent is something they look at when adjusting from an F1. They do the same when adjusting from VWP adjustments, for example -- they want to make sure someone hadn't quit their job, sold their home abroad, emptied bank accounts, etc. prior to arriving in the US. If all is how it seems, then it isn't an issue at all.

And, I said (and supported in the last post) that regardless of what they are adjusting from, prior intent will not be an issue that the beneficiary will need to prove since they would be the immediate relative of a USC -- it won't even come up at the interview. Because of these circumstances, intent is not something they will look at when adjusting from an F1 in this case. For all other adjusters (not an immediate relative of a USC) it is an absolute show stopper and can be the sole reason for a denial.

[TracyTN 237]

And, I said (and supported in the last post) that regardless of what they are adjusting from, prior intent will not be an issue that the beneficiary will need to prove since they would be the immediate relative of a USC -- it won't even come up at the interview. Because of these circumstances, intent is not something they will look at when adjusting from an F1 in this case. For all other adjusters (not an immediate relative of a USC) it is an absolute show stopper and can be the sole reason for a denial.

Then I guess I'm puzzled by all the cases I've heard of VWP adjusters married to USCs having to prove non immigrant intent at the time of entry (generally at interview).

I suppose they were lying.

[john_and_marlene 162]

If this is the case, then I wonder how they get away with denying people who have entered on VWP because it has happened.

Show me 1 case specifically, where the beneficiary was married to a USC and the denial was based on the prior intent and not some other factor. Hearsay is not enough to show--that's the problem with just saying it has happened--it get propogated as fact. An actual denial letter is needed. All too often someone states why they were denied only to be corrected when the actual denial information shows that they were incorrect regarding the reasons for their own denial.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Then I guess I'm puzzled by all the cases I've heard of VWP adjusters married to USCs having to prove non immigrant intent at the time of entry (generally at interview).

I suppose they were lying.

Please show me 1 validated example thate wasn't just what someone heard or a story about a friend of a friend.

[TracyTN 237]

Show me 1 case specifically, where the beneficiary was married to a USC and the denial was based on the prior intent and not some other factor. Hearsay is not enough to show--that's the problem with just saying it has happened--it get propogated as fact. An actual denial letter is needed. All too often someone states why they were denied only to be corrected when the actual denial information shows that they were incorrect regarding the reasons for their own denial.

I don't recall that the cases I have read about on various boards have ever posted the actual denial letter, so I doubt what you're asking for can be found.

I suppose I was always under the same impression as what was expressed on this document (page 2, final question):

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A2.pdf

[pushbrk 13,044]

I don't recall that the cases I have read about on various boards have ever posted the actual denial letter, so I doubt what you're asking for can be found.

I suppose I was always under the same impression as what was expressed on this document (page 2, final question):

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A2.pdf

Context is King in this statement.

Attempting to get a visa or

enter the U.S. by saying one thing when you intend another may

be considered immigration fraud, for which there are severe

penalties.

Note first that the context using another visa with the clear intent to avoid obtaining the correct visa and second more important is that the denial would be for fraudulently stating the intent at entry. People tend to infer from such statements that there's some burden of proof regarding intent. The inference is incorrect.

As a practical matter, an F1 visa holder enrolled in school is sufficient to conclude the F1 visa was properly used. Once here legally as opposed to illegally or fraudulently, foreigners may marry US Citizens and adjust status if they otherwise qualify.

[john_and_marlene 162]

I don't recall that the cases I have read about on various boards have ever posted the actual denial letter, so I doubt what you're asking for can be found.

I suppose I was always under the same impression as what was expressed on this document (page 2, final question):

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A2.pdf

I have read that. I agree that using nonimmigrant means with intent to immigrate is illegal and that the USCIS wants to discourage it. I am just saying that it will not be a factor used to deny the adjustment. What you may find in this type of case where the adjustment was denied is a finding of material misrepresentation at the POE. If they lie at the POE regarding the purpose of their visit in order to gain entry, the misrepresentation can still be used to deny a subsequent adjustment application if the entry would normally have been denied had the truth been known. The lie can cause a denial where the intent would not.

[TracyTN 237]

Context is King in this statement.

Attempting to get a visa or

enter the U.S. by saying one thing when you intend another may

be considered immigration fraud, for which there are severe

penalties.

Note first that the context using another visa with the clear intent to avoid obtaining the correct visa and second more important is that the denial would be for fraudulently stating the intent at entry. People tend to infer from such statements that there's some burden of proof regarding intent. The inference is incorrect.

That makes more sense to me than throwing around a bunch of case law, though I still tend to disagree that entering on the VWP when you know you intend to stay is an ok thing to do simply because you're marrying a USC. The only slight grey area I've seen on that lately is that you're unlikely to be questioned at all if you married/applied to adjust status within the 90 day period.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=651746

I will be sure to ask the next person denied adjustment on VWP (or otherwise) to scan and post the contents of the denial, as it will be curious to see what they're enforcing.