AOS before or after I-94 expires

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

*sigh*

The marriage is the fulfillment of the terms of the K-1. Other visa's have other terms you must fulfill like staying employed with the particular employer that employed you, or going to the college you said you were attending. The reason that marriage doesn't provide any change to your status in other situations besides the K-1, is because you never entered an agreement with the US government beforehand in situations other than the K-1. Doyasee?

In my person opinion the K-1 is completely dumb and they should overhaul it completely. I didn't opt for that sucky visa, but, as they say, whatevs.

I agree, whoever designed the K1 made quite a few errors when developing the policy. It is a flawed visa and had I chosen again I would have gone the VWP......hehe thats a joke. I would have gone the CR route.

But isn't this argument pointless now. No one is (at least now) is saying that you MUST file before 90 days. Its obviously better to remain in status so if you can file do it, if you can't file make it your priority just under food/house/healthcare etc. and that's that. I don't even see the point of this thread any longer.

[F & J 21]

Yes, I get you don't have to apply for AOS before the 90 days, or ever at all. That's not in discussion. What is: assuming marriage has taken place in 90 days but AOS has not been filed and the I-94 expires -- is the alien is still in status or out of status. It's either one or the other. And yes, I know that's not the same as being illegal so don't go off on a tangent on that -- so which one is it, Mox?

and though this question wasn't directed at me, I have to say - as I posted before (according to the CBP and USCIS), that not filing AOS before the I-94 expires renders the person out of status, whether or not the marriage took place.

And with that, I will make my exit as I probably don't have anything else helpful to contribute to the discussion. ^__^;;

Edited February 25, 2010 by Fatima and Jim

[mox 298]

Oh, good, the dramatic *sighs* are making a comeback.

For a darned foreigner, I'd say my reading/writing/comprehension skills are so-so. Pardon me. So far, apart from you insisting that you are correct in your position (that a person doesn't go out of status post the expiry date on the I-94 even if they've not filed for AOS,) I've not seen one legal source or even an anecdote from the USCIS, CBP, immigration lawyer. I could easily be wrong -- I'm not a lawyer trained in immigration affairs and I'm fairly certain neither are you since your reasoning doesn't even follow the path of logic. However, since you've been so kind as to repeat your point over and over and over again, maybe you could do me one last favor and post what is it that you're saying -- assuming I've not understood you yet -- in clear English without any of your condescension.

Yes, I get you don't have to apply for AOS before the 90 days, or ever at all. That's not in discussion. What is: assuming marriage has taken place in 90 days but AOS has not been filed and the I-94 expires -- is the alien is still in status or out of status. It's either one or the other. And yes, I know that's not the same as being illegal so don't go off on a tangent on that -- so which one is it, Mox?

Since you've no desire to actually read or comprehend, how about this: you go ahead and think of the argument that makes you the most right, and makes me the most wrong, and we'll just go with that. That way you can have the feeling of smug satisfaction, and I don't have to keep repeating myself to a brick wall.

[sachinky 465]

You still didn't answer my question.

[bakofoil 27]

Sachinky, read post #87.

In short, I wasn't "wrong" when I responded to Beatlesrebel, but I could have been more thorough in my answer....

If we all had the ability to edit our posts long after they were posted we might all be less thorough in our answers...

[mox 298]

If we all had the ability to edit our posts long after they were posted we might all be less thorough in our answers...

Yeah, this really is complete bullsh*t, and completely undermines fair and honest discourse.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Yeah, this really is complete bullsh*t, and completely undermines fair and honest discourse.

Ah, I think I'm starting to see what's going on here.

[mox 298]

Ah, I think I'm starting to see what's going on here.

You probably don't.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

You probably don't.

Oh come on now, mate.

I might not have as many boxes under my avatar as you do, but do you think I just fell off a log?

[mox 298]

Oh come on now, mate.

I might not have as many boxes under my avatar as you do, but do you think I just fell off a log?

Yeah alright, you got me. Damn.

[LaL 418]

what is so hard to understand about "out of status"?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Yeah alright, you got me. Damn.

Well, seriously.

I came into this thread because I THOUGHT there were some people asking serious questions about a serious issue. I thought we were going to be able to remain civil about it. I can pretty safely say you can go back to my posts and find that even though we disagreed, I didn't get as rude with you as you got with me. I took some offense to that at the time. I think now you were (and still are) riled up over somebody else you disagree with.

[mox 298]

JQ, you're taking this WAY too personally. The manner in which I post is to make my point, sometimes humorously, sometimes directly, but always with a single aim in mind. You're free to engage or disengage with me, it doesn't matter, but I'm no more or less civil with you than just about anybody else. (Except LaL. I have a super-sekrit internet crush on LaL.)

And then there are certain hot-button issues with me. One of them is the basis for this thread. Another is people abusing their privileges (although quite frankly I see this more of a problem of the board leadership than an individual problem, but still.). I'm told I need to get over these issues. But it has nothing to do with you, so again, don't take it personally.

[bakofoil 27]

what is so hard to understand about "out of status"?

I don't know LaL. I really don't know.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

JQ, you're taking this WAY too personally. The manner in which I post is to make my point, sometimes humorously, sometimes directly, but always with a single aim in mind. You're free to engage or disengage with me, it doesn't matter, but I'm no more or less civil with you than just about anybody else. (Except LaL. I have a super-sekrit internet crush on LaL.)

And then there are certain hot-button issues with me. One of them is the basis for this thread. Another is people abusing their privileges (although quite frankly I see this more of a problem of the board leadership than an individual problem, but still.). I'm told I need to get over these issues. But it has nothing to do with you, so again, don't take it personally.

I won't if you won't.

I've got a scary feeling though in my bones about that.