AOS before or after I-94 expires

[mox 298]

Camie -

This has not been at any point a discussion intended to make people feel bad. Or to make others feel 'better' for having done the 'right' thing.

Everybody has their crosses in life to bear.

No, actually Camie is spot on. And it's not just in this thread, it's all over VJ, and it's why I've been so ####### about trying to get across this notion that people need legal based information much more than they need "sound advice." It's why I've been so hard on those who hand out advice that sounds really good in their head but is grounded in nothing but hearsay and opinion. People like Camie who are in a very difficult financial position don't need to hear that they're going to be hauled off to jail to be kicked out of the country and so hey you really should just go ahead and file AOS because damn girl you really should have planned for it in the first place. That's pompous self-righteous one-size-fits-all opinion, and the only people it helps are the people who really don't need the advice anyway.

It may not be a conscious decision to scare and confuse, but then maybe the people handing out advice around here need to start being a little more conscious of what they're putting out there.

[sachinky 465]

Here's my question: If you didn't go "out of status" once the date on the I-94 expires, then why are you banned on attempting to enter the U.S. after 6 months of "over stay?" Clearly, you did accrue those overstay days.

Again, no rule that says you have to file for AOS before I-94 expiry. No rule that says you have to file for AOS AT ALL. As long as you don't wish to drive, work or travel, you can stay at home and grocery shop for the next ten years. However, that stay of yours at home is still "out of status." The K-1 is a non immigrant visa and doesn't provide any special protection. Any privilege that comes along with it such as forgiving overstays is a result of your marriage to a USC. Not the method of entry which would be legal for any other visa entrant too, like F-1, B-2.

[sachinky 465]

But I do know that the K1 is special in possibly a short bus kinda way. For example, it's a non-immigrant visa that allows adjustment of status. Weird huh? Maybe there are other visas that do that too, but if I was a wagering man instead of a heavy drinker, I'd bet that tourist visas don't allow this sort of thing unless you pull the 'ol "o hai Ima marry right out of the blue but honestly I had no intent" thing. It's also a visa that stops being a visa when you'd think you need it most. That's kinda weird too huh?

Like I said before, each visa comes with it's own caveat and strings attached. I could do the same with the F-1 and make it sound oh-so-special--Seriously, how many non immigrant visas do you know of that REQUIRE you to take 12 credits a semester by law? Weird, huh? How many non-immigrant visas allow you to work only 20 hours during the semester but 40 during the summer! Oh wow! How many non immigrant visas do you know of that allows you get a fancy post-graduation EAD/OPT and allows you to work? Hai!

Unless you file for AOS you are not a legal immigrant, and thus out of status once your I-94 expires. Which is the all-important document that governs your presence in the U.S. Not the visa, itself. Not your marriage.

Edited February 25, 2010 by sachinky

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I think you misunderstood my statement about the K1 being a funny little visa and that somehow I was suggesting it provides some 'protection'. It is marriage which provides this protection as long as you remain in the country if you have not already obtained advance parole or conditional residency.

That's just it, bakofil. Marriage alone doesn't provide any protections to an out of status alien. Marriage to a USC is the vehicle which allows the alien to apply for the protection.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

No, actually Camie is spot on. And it's not just in this thread, it's all over VJ, and it's why I've been so ####### about trying to get across this notion that people need legal based information much more than they need "sound advice." It's why I've been so hard on those who hand out advice that sounds really good in their head but is grounded in nothing but hearsay and opinion. People like Camie who are in a very difficult financial position don't need to hear that they're going to be hauled off to jail to be kicked out of the country and so hey you really should just go ahead and file AOS because damn girl you really should have planned for it in the first place. That's pompous self-righteous one-size-fits-all opinion, and the only people it helps are the people who really don't need the advice anyway.

It may not be a conscious decision to scare and confuse, but then maybe the people handing out advice around here need to start being a little more conscious of what they're putting out there.

mox, mox, mox..........

That's a lovely white horse you are riding on!

No one is a more staunch advocate of forum unity AND correct information than myself. I applaud your "analness" as you call it. But let's not confuse it with blowing smoke in the name of helping people feel better about their situation. Sure there's a difference between someone wagging their finger and scolding BUT as my Mum used to say "that's your own cow out of the barn over there". Some people HAVE just offered opinions here - others have shown the realities. You can't just gloss over what's real.

Remember the analogy about the hot stove?

Peace. Out.

[mox 298]

mox, mox, mox..........

That's a lovely white horse you are riding on!

No one is a more staunch advocate of forum unity AND correct information than myself. I applaud your "analness" as you call it. But let's not confuse it with blowing smoke in the name of helping people feel better about their situation. Sure there's a difference between someone wagging their finger and scolding BUT as my Mum used to say "that's your own cow out of the barn over there". Some people HAVE just offered opinions here - others have shown the realities. You can't just gloss over what's real.

Remember the analogy about the hot stove?

Peace. Out.

Great, you invoked my name 3 times so now I have to feed on the souls of everyone here. The kids, they're gonna love you for that. And I'll thank you not to call Sundrop a horse, that's just mean don't you think? (heh get it? Because see...I was riding...*ahem* I kid because I love. IS THIS THING EVEN ON???)

If you don't feel like you're one of the people out there handing out opinions and scariness in the place of facts and factiness, then maybe don't protest so much. Come on over and sit in the suddenly luke warm water with me, it's fine. Yes, people HAVE offered opinions, but very few people are offering the facts (or hell for that matter even KNOW the facts), or they are offering opinion as fact and that's where the problem lies. If you think "shown the realities" means "zomg you will be picked up at a roadside checkpoint and kicked out of the country," then that is nowhere close to helpful, and only a reality that's just one step above urban legend.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Great, you invoked my name 3 times so now I have to feed on the souls of everyone here. The kids, they're gonna love you for that. And I'll thank you not to call Sundrop a horse, that's just mean don't you think? (heh get it? Because see...I was riding...*ahem* I kid because I love. IS THIS THING EVEN ON???)

If you don't feel like you're one of the people out there handing out opinions and scariness in the place of facts and factiness, then maybe don't protest so much. Come on over and sit in the suddenly luke warm water with me, it's fine. Yes, people HAVE offered opinions, but very few people are offering the facts (or hell for that matter even KNOW the facts), or they are offering opinion as fact and that's where the problem lies. If you think "shown the realities" means "zomg you will be picked up at a roadside checkpoint and kicked out of the country," then that is nowhere close to helpful, and only a reality that's just one step above urban legend.

Well then there's that urban legend that if you marry a USC you're good to go. You know, like in that movie "GreenCard".

There's a place in the middle here, mox, at least so far as "scary posting" goes. A place between contending that you don't have to ever file for AOS (which is something you did say) and contending that not filing means a certain death (which is your interpretation of what others have said).

IMO, that "middle place" is stating that should an alien be in the US without a defined status, they do so at their own risk. No matter how infinitesimal that risk may be. I know we all want to sing kumbaya around here and make nice, but it's not nice either to just skip over the unpleasant bits.

And as I said before..........Peace.

[sachinky 465]

I'm still waiting to hear Mox's explanation for this since he keeps insisting that the alien is still in status past the expiry of the I-94: If you don't go "out of status" once the date on the I-94 expires, then why are you banned for three years when attempting to enter the U.S. after 6 months of "overstay?"

The answer is pretty simple and logical, to me at least -- despite your legal entry and subsequent marriage to a USC, you did clearly accrue 180 days of being "out-of-status" which earns you the three year ban, otherwise you could just get another visa and re-enter the country.

Edited February 25, 2010 by sachinky

[bakofoil 27]

How many times do we need to say it? It's really good to file for AOS. If you have the money file the day after your marriage. You know, do that rather than sitting around in chonies enjoying your new husband/wife and not a week later when they've gone back to work and you have nothing to do. Because it is REALLY important that you do it right then and there, as soon as possible!

If you can't afford to do it straight away, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY and then re-enter with any status because you don't have any. You don't. You'll have to apply all over with an I-130 and a waiver if you accrue any overstay over 180 days. That's not good folks, but it doesn't mean you'll never ever see your loved ones again. It's just a temporary setback you might want to avoid.

I don't think any of us are in disagreement about the necessity to AOS, what we're saying is there is actually some flexibility, under specific confines, which will not damage your adjustment application at all. It simply does not hurt your application. Maybe it's not the best way to file AOS because the sooner the better on that score for all kinds of reasons. No one is disagreeing on that, but sh*t happens and people can't file immediately.

See, the problem here is that in YOUR quest to be right you are missing the point that people have their own individual circumstances which may affect their ability to do things the prescribed way. Scaring them and making them feel unlawful is not helping. Advising them to prioritise AOS, or to cautious of doing/avoiding certain things otherwise it *might* land them in trouble is far more helpful.

[SunDrop 59]

And I'll thank you not to call Sundrop a horse

LMAO

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

See, the problem here is that in YOUR quest to be right you are missing the point that people have their own individual circumstances which may affect their ability to do things the prescribed way. Scaring them and making them feel unlawful is not helping. Advising them to prioritise AOS, or to cautious of doing/avoiding certain things otherwise it *might* land them in trouble is far more helpful.

You misunderstand me. There's no quest at all to be right.

It is important to me that readers understand terminology, processes and 'what stuff means'. There's nothing going on here beyond that.

[mox 298]

There's a place in the middle here, mox, at least so far as "scary posting" goes. A place between contending that you don't have to ever file for AOS (which is something you did say) and contending that not filing means a certain death (which is your interpretation of what others have said).

Here's the "place": By all means, provide your opinion. Go ahead and say your sister's best friend's soccer coach's cousin's boyfriend's coprologist's psychic's dog-walker's mom was caught at a checkpoint, trussed up like a piñata, sent to Guantanamo, sent to Syria for further questioning about the nature of their secondary evidence, sent back to Guantanamo, sent to Sanliac Michigan for the Rotary Club's annual "kick an illegal immigrant in the nards/ovaries" ball, back to Guantanamo, and eventually returned to their country by certified mail in a create. Just make sure you're not offering this up as the end-all/be-all "this is the law yo!" way of things. And most importantly, either KNOW the law that you're citing, or sit back quietly and let somebody answer who does know the law, instead of just driving by every single thread to up your post count in an attempt to win friends and influence people you have no business influencing.

IMO, that "middle place" is stating that should an alien be in the US without a defined status, they do so at their own risk. No matter how infinitesimal that risk may be. I know we all want to sing kumbaya around here and make nice, but it's not nice either to just skip over the unpleasant bits.

Sure, fine, "groovy" (as the kids say), as long as the "unpleasant bits" have any basis in reality. "Here's what happened to me..." or "here's what my lawyer said..." stories are particularly useful. Of particular not-useful is throwing out the absolute most horrible scenario because you think you might have seen it in a Facebook status once. Even worse is sussing up what you think might be a horrible unpleasant outcome, or how you *think* the immigration system should work if you were king of immigrationland, that is only factual in the way that pixies, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, and real, helpful, and honest moderation on Visa Journey is factual. (oh that mox, he did NOT go there ziiing!)

This is not rocket surgery, and yet it's so very tolerated at every level on this site. I shouldn't be the only one here sounding my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world (yes StillThePrettiest, I've read a poem. Try not to faint). People should be challenging this ####### all the time instead of piling onto the train wreck. Really helpful and knowledgeable people have left VJ by the droves over the last couple of years, in large part because the signal to noise ratio has gotten so low. People here drive around at light speed trying to be the first or loudest to answer a question, when in fact what's needed are people to slow down, think, and post only if what they have to say is of real value.

I'm still waiting to hear Mox's explanation for this since he keeps insisting that the alien is still in status past the expiry of the I-94: If you don't go "out of status" once the date on the I-94 expires, then why are you banned for three years when attempting to enter the U.S. after 6 months of "overstay?"

Errrrrrmmm...no, I never said that, no cookie for you. In fact, I've even said if you are not "in" status, then you are by definition out of status. The key to the ban is that you have to leave the US first.

The answer is pretty simple and logical, to me at least -- despite your legal entry and subsequent marriage to a USC, you did clearly accrue 180 days of being "out-of-status" which earns you the three year ban, otherwise you could just get another visa and re-enter the country.

Oh good, thank you for clearing that up because ABSOLUTELY NOBODY HERE HAS SAID ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY. (sorry, stuck keyboard)

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Here's the "place": By all means, provide your opinion. Go ahead and say your sister's best friend's soccer coach's cousin's boyfriend's coprologist's psychic's dog-walker's mom was caught at a checkpoint, trussed up like a piñata, sent to Guantanamo, sent to Syria for further questioning about the nature of their secondary evidence, sent back to Guantanamo, sent to Sanliac Michigan for the Rotary Club's annual "kick an illegal immigrant in the nards/ovaries" ball, back to Guantanamo, and eventually returned to their country by certified mail in a create. Just make sure you're not offering this up as the end-all/be-all "this is the law yo!" way of things. And most importantly, either KNOW the law that you're citing, or sit back quietly and let somebody answer who does know the law, instead of just driving by every single thread to up your post count in an attempt to win friends and influence people you have no business influencing.

Sure, fine, "groovy" (as the kids say), as long as the "unpleasant bits" have any basis in reality. "Here's what happened to me..." or "here's what my lawyer said..." stories are particularly useful. Of particular not-useful is throwing out the absolute most horrible scenario because you think you might have seen it in a Facebook status once. Even worse is sussing up what you think might be a horrible unpleasant outcome, or how you *think* the immigration system should work if you were king of immigrationland, that is only factual in the way that pixies, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, and real, helpful, and honest moderation on Visa Journey is factual. (oh that mox, he did NOT go there ziiing!)

This is not rocket surgery, and yet it's so very tolerated at every level on this site. I shouldn't be the only one here sounding my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world (yes StillThePrettiest, I've read a poem. Try not to faint). People should be challenging this ####### all the time instead of piling onto the train wreck. Really helpful and knowledgeable people have left VJ by the droves over the last couple of years, in large part because the signal to noise ratio has gotten so low. People here drive around at light speed trying to be the first or loudest to answer a question, when in fact what's needed are people to slow down, think, and post only if what they have to say is of real value.

My, that was rude. Are you always this insolent to people?

[mox 298]

My, that was rude. Are you always this insolent to people?

No, I'm usually a lot more insolent, I just haven't had my Starbucks yet.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

Well then there's that urban legend that if you marry a USC you're good to go. You know, like in that movie "GreenCard".

Did the person in GreenCard enter the country with a visa specifically for the purposes of marrying?

Did the act of marrying complete the requirements of a visa that they entered the country upon? No it didn't.

Does me saying some lovely magic vows to my partner and him saying them back to me do anything at all? Most days not, but one day we said nice things to each other, and it was in front of someone who had the power to make those words magically legally binding, which then allowed us to apply for a visa.

There's such a thing as context, ya know. Marriage is a different thing in the context of a K-1 than it is in the context of someone here on a VWP or B-1 and then marrying.