Perm Res bring nephew to US

[Kris & Liezl 3]

I am going to ask you a question according to your statement the mother died 7 years ago, why didn't the SO adopt her sister then, Why is it necessary for the OP to adopt the sister now that she is attempting to migrate to the US. Also, you have stated that you'll have known each other for 10 years, and none of this was a concern even in her home country, the OP want to have guardianship over her sister. To the US immigration, the adoption at this time will look as if you are only using it to gain a pathway for the sister to enter the US.

BTW, the father is still active in the sister life, even if it isn't up to your standards. So, all of this proves that the sister has never been a true orphan. This will be the 1st obstacle you will have to overcome , in the true sense the sister is not an orphan. Will he give up his rights to the sister, yes if he think sending her to the US will give her a better life.

Hell, everyone in a 3rd world country would do this, but this is not the definition that the US immigration uses to define an orphan. I know this is not what you want to hear, but it is what is.

I am not judging or criticizing your actions I am only stating our this will look in the eyes of immigration. If all else doesn’t work, then think about putting the sister in a private boarding school, and give her the best you’ll can offer.

I don't know why she didn't adopt her then. In the Philippines, it is apparently common for a sibling to assume raising a minor sibling if the PARENT (singular) dies. According to my fiancee, the costs associated with the official adoption process (adopting of a sibling) are more than most people can afford, and the process seems unnecessary to them - the child still gets raised, adopted or not. So the mom died, and my then 19 year old friend - not even done with college at that time - assumed raising her young sister. Nine years into our friendship, we realize we're in love and I asked her to marry me. We're engaged now, and we've discovered on USCIS that a woman can only bring (a) HER children, (b) HER step-children, or © HER adopted children. Logically, (a) and (b) are out of the question. The only option that would work for us is the adoption. So I told her to go ahead and adopt her sister. And her lawyer is telling her that the adoption can be made retroactive to when my fiancee actually assumed taking care of her sister. That is why she's only now adopting her - So that she can bring her and not leave her to fend for herself - she's only 12!!

I don't understand why this is such an issue to US Immigration - especially since I am the one paying for it, not them. I am not asking for any of their money. Isn't that what my affidavit of support is for, and my tax returns and all that stuff they're going to want later on??

I don't know if I can say I would be proud to live in a country that would split a girl from the only "mother" she probably ever remembers. This is a very real world, valid issue and they need to revisit to redefine what an "orphan" is. There are single mothers in third world countries - sometimes they pass away, leaving an adult child to raise minor siblings. What if they don't know who the father is? What if they don't know where he is or how to reach him? What if the father was a tourist? If the ONLY parent raising the child dies - that too should define what a "orphan" is. Sure we all have a male contribution and a female contribution, but many times one of those chooses to not stick around. Luckily my fiancee's little sister had an adult sibling to take over. The father may not even show up to sign away his rights, to give her a better life - that is how responsible he is. This girl is screwed, because of a very narrow definition.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to insinuate that you are judging or criticizing. I'm just frustrated because I feel like I've been thrown a curve ball. On USCIS, it says a woman can bring her adopted children - that is false advertising! I may not even have to worry about the boarding school thing... If her sister cannot come, I feel like my fiancee may not come. If you'd seen them together, you'd know what I mean. After seven years, that bond is like a mother and her child. I guess I need to prepare myself for her possibly not coming at all.

[Kris & Liezl 3]

The girl is not an orphan, the child has parents

Contact that lawyer I sent you the info for. USCIS is known as the 'misinformation line" you do NOT need misinformation regarding the future of a child

I will contact her. You said on Wednesday's correct? Laural Scott? Do you have contact information?

[Kris & Liezl 3]

The point you have to prove is that the parent(s) are incapable of supporting the child to the local poverty level. This could mean that they are disabled or inprisioned or something of that sort. That is the "loophole" of not being an orphan. Proving is in the legal sense not just making statements and not that you can provide a better life. You have to prove your sister is not capable of raising the child.

Okay, I think you mean I will have to prove that my fiancee's father is not capable of raising his youngest daughter. Because my fiancee is very capable. Their father doesn't work, has no home, has children by other women who also get no support. I'm just going to tell her to gather as much evidence as she can that he is unfit, especially to raise a 12-year-old girl.

[LIFE'SJOURNEY 970]

I don't know why she didn't adopt her then. In the Philippines, it is apparently common for a sibling to assume raising a minor sibling if the PARENT (singular) dies. According to my fiancee, the costs associated with the official adoption process (adopting of a sibling) are more than most people can afford, and the process seems unnecessary to them - the child still gets raised, adopted or not. So the mom died, and my then 19 year old friend - not even done with college at that time - assumed raising her young sister. Nine years into our friendship, we realize we're in love and I asked her to marry me. We're engaged now, and we've discovered on USCIS that a woman can only bring (a) HER children, (b) HER step-children, or © HER adopted children. Logically, (a) and (b) are out of the question. The only option that would work for us is the adoption. So I told her to go ahead and adopt her sister. And her lawyer is telling her that the adoption can be made retroactive to when my fiancee actually assumed taking care of her sister. That is why she's only now adopting her - So that she can bring her and not leave her to fend for herself - she's only 12!!

I don't understand why this is such an issue to US Immigration - especially since I am the one paying for it, not them. I am not asking for any of their money. Isn't that what my affidavit of support is for, and my tax returns and all that stuff they're going to want later on??

I don't know if I can say I would be proud to live in a country that would split a girl from the only "mother" she probably ever remembers. This is a very real world, valid issue and they need to revisit to redefine what an "orphan" is. There are single mothers in third world countries - sometimes they pass away, leaving an adult child to raise minor siblings. What if they don't know who the father is? What if they don't know where he is or how to reach him? What if the father was a tourist? If the ONLY parent raising the child dies - that too should define what a "orphan" is. Sure we all have a male contribution and a female contribution, but many times one of those chooses to not stick around. Luckily my fiancee's little sister had an adult sibling to take over. The father may not even show up to sign away his rights, to give her a better life - that is how responsible he is. This girl is screwed, because of a very narrow definition.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to insinuate that you are judging or criticizing. I'm just frustrated because I feel like I've been thrown a curve ball. On USCIS, it says a woman can bring her adopted children - that is false advertising! I may not even have to worry about the boarding school thing... If her sister cannot come, I feel like my fiancee may not come. If you'd seen them together, you'd know what I mean. After seven years, that bond is like a mother and her child. I guess I need to prepare myself for her possibly not coming at all.

You see what I have bolded, this will be considered FRAUD. So, why do something that is illegal to obtain another objective.

[Kris & Liezl 3]

You see what I have bolded, this will be considered FRAUD. So, why do something that is illegal to obtain another objective.

Aaaarrgghhh! I don't understand... That is something a lawyer told her. Why is it fraud? It's an adoption...

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

Rarely it is allowed for a legal document to be backdated. In the US to backdate something you have to file a separate motion nunc pro tunc that proves the great harm not doing so will cause. You are going to have immigration all over this intra family adoption why give them a way to claim inproper handling of the case ( by backdating) Do what you must to prove that the child is not able to be left with the father and keep everything on the up and up. Backdating could backfire in having your fiance accused of providing false documentation and banned which won't help anyone.

[LIFE'SJOURNEY 970]

Aaaarrgghhh! I don't understand... That is something a lawyer told her. Why is it fraud? It's an adoption...

AS stated above ^^, what is considered except able in another country is not considered to be except able for the United States. It will be the US who will be judging the legality of the adoption not the Phil.

Edited February 4, 2011 by LIFE'SJOURNEY

[canadian_wife 1,829]

I will contact her. You said on Wednesday's correct? Laural Scott? Do you have contact information?

scottimmigration.net

[Export of Dhaka 8]

Yes it does, the LPR can file for a spouse or child under 21. Those are both considered immediate relatives.

Good luck OP

WHAT?? "Immediate relative" is NOT a loose term that is subject to your or anyone's interpretation. The term "immediate relative" has SPECIFIC definition as per INA. Immediate relative = Spouse, Minor Children (under 21, unmarried sons and daughters) and Parents of US Citizen. And that's it - you or I don't define who is or who isn't an immediate relative.

With this kind of ability to interpret laws, my thoughts for you is to not give advice to anyone.

[canadian_wife 1,829]

With this kind of ability to interpret laws, my thoughts for you is to not give advice to anyone.

WOW, harsh! Thanks

Mistake noted, thanks for being remarkably cruel.

PS - No one's job here is to interpret laws as we are not lawyers offering law advice. It was an OPINION which is what a public board is for.