Controlling Documents for Legal Presence in the United States

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Your wrong mox. Working is a bad thing.

Wait you drink at work...ah now I see why you say its good!

Edited February 24, 2010 by Sousuke

[klicristina 0]

I really need to stop drinking at work.

I agree with that. no more drinks, ok?!

[mox 298]

Sadly, I am a contrary person by nature so now I *have* to drink. Damn you!

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Sadly, I am a contrary person by nature so now I *have* to drink. Damn you!

Pass me that bottle of gin when yer done with it, moxy. *hic*

[HeatDeath 430]

I'm gonna say something insanely controversial here, but I think it really needs to be said:

Everybody who comes to the US on a K1 visa should adjust status as soon as humanly possible. Adjusting status is a good thing. Not adjusting status is a bad thing. Adjusting status allows you to do interesting things like work, leave the country and return, obtain citizenship, carry around a really cool sorta-kinda green holographicy ID card, etc.

Now go easy on me people, I know it's a concept that's going to take awhile to come to terms with, especially since it's been said in EVERY SINGLE EFFING POST UP TO THIS ONE, but there's probably one poor sod out there who thinks filing AOS might be a bad thing, so please, let's keep repeating this mantra over and over, because 5 pages of "filing AOS is a good thing" just isn't enough.

I really need to stop drinking at work.

The issue at stake isn't whether AOSing before the I-94 expires is good. We all (well, ok, most of us) know that. What's at stake here is the far more interesting "Why is it a good idea? What government document says it's a good idea? If we can't find that, is there at least a government document or combination of documents that implies clearly that not doing it is a bad idea?" There is a certain kind of stubbornness in some people that answers every piece of advice with "Prove it!" This discussion is an attempt to find that proof.

As I've commented at length above, I believe firmly that AOSing as early as possible is a good idea, with good reasons for it, but that those reasons, because of the nature of law, are not likely to be explicitly set down in any particular regulatory code.

Edited February 24, 2010 by HeatDeath

[mox 298]

Pass me that bottle of gin when yer done with it, moxy. *hic*

When I'm done with it? You gonna recycle it for me? I kid I kid, have a drink with me!

[SunDrop 59]

edited completely... sorry I can't delete it!

Edited February 25, 2010 by SunDrop

[mox 298]

It's pretty disingenuous to come back and delete a post an hour later. Seems like an abuse of organiser privileges to me.

[SunDrop 59]

It's pretty disingenuous to come back and delete a post an hour later. Seems like an abuse of organiser privileges to me.

Has it ever struck you, that maybe, just maybe there was absolutely nothing "disingenuous" about it at all?

With the 2 threads going on this related subject, and 2 windows open, I typed a reply to the less technical debate in the wrong effing window. Hit 'submit', saw what happened, hit 'edit' immediately and took it out leaving a comment to the effect of 'wrong thread, need to figure it out brb'. Hit 'edit' again, and my kid - yes, I have a real life beyond VJ - needed me, I went afk and came back and amended it to 'edited completely' and just submit. It didn't even cross my mind that it wasn't rejected due to timing out because of the associated organizer abilities.

[Nich-Nick 3,354]

Viewpoint A:

Status is controlled by I-94 and AOS receipt date (NOA1). A gap between I-94 expiry and AOS receipt date would result in the applicant/K-1 entrant being "out of status".

Viewpoint B:

The K-1 entrant is legally present in the US provided that they have married before the expiration date on the I-94, and they continue to be legally present after the expiration of the I-94 if they have not yet filed for Adjustment Of Status.

Back to this original question, I asked CBP for a comment on their website "ask a question" feature. I asked for comment on the above statements. I received an email reply from customs@customs-mail.custhelp.com.

Response (Mark) 02/25/2010 12:22 PM

After a K1 visa holder marries they need to file the paperwork with USCIS to adjust their status and become permanent residents. If they do not file the paperwork with USCIS by the date shown on the I-94 they will be in the US illegally and could be deported. For more information on this you should contact USCIS, www.uscis.gov. I hope this answer helps.

Please note that in our online tracking software, a “Solved” status simply means that we have provided you with the best information we have to your question. There may still be steps you need to complete before your situation is resolved to your satisfaction. Those steps are explained in our response. If you need further clarification on those steps, please feel free to contact us back.

Thank you for contacting Customs and Border Protection's Customer Service Center. If you have any other questions or would like clarification on this response, please feel free to contact us either by calling our toll free number 877 CBP-5511 (227-5511) or if calling from outside the United States our toll number 703-526-4200 and speak with a Public Information Officer. Our hours of operation are Monday thru Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm Eastern Time.

I don't have an opinion on this long debated subject, but was just curious to know how a person representing the national Customs and Border Protection would answer the question.

[mox 298]

Has it ever struck you, that maybe, just maybe there was absolutely nothing "disingenuous" about it at all?

With the 2 threads going on this related subject, and 2 windows open, I typed a reply to the less technical debate in the wrong effing window. Hit 'submit', saw what happened, hit 'edit' immediately and took it out leaving a comment to the effect of 'wrong thread, need to figure it out brb'. Hit 'edit' again, and my kid - yes, I have a real life beyond VJ - needed me, I went afk and came back and amended it to 'edited completely' and just submit. It didn't even cross my mind that it wasn't rejected due to timing out because of the associated organizer abilities.

You edited a post an hour after posting it. Now I'll give you that it's pretty irresponsible of the site admin to hand that kind of privilege out to anybody, but it seems to me like somebody who's been around as long as you have would understand that this has been an issue in the past and that restraint might be the better part of valor. It may be just as you say, or it may have been something more. I have no way of knowing, and neither does anybody else. Appearance of wrong-doing can be just as damning as the actual wrong-doing.