USCIS have FINALLY Publicized their VWP Policy

[rosie's baby 5]

Just as a reply to the person you know, Myopia, who is eight years through a ten year ban and intending to come back on a B1/2 visa, I was told by the London Embassy that you cannot get a B visa if you have clearly shown intent to live here. I was actually refused one, as I had previously had an E2 status, on that basis, and told that these were the rules they had to follow. Of course, if he can do an EB5 it may be a different story, as money talks here, even though you don't have to contribute anything more than the $500,000! overiding all the other immigration injustices! Do I sound bitter? I sure am!!

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Just as a reply to the person you know, Myopia, who is eight years through a ten year ban and intending to come back on a B1/2 visa, I was told by the London Embassy that you cannot get a B visa if you have clearly shown intent to live here. I was actually refused one, as I had previously had an E2 status, on that basis, and told that these were the rules they had to follow. Of course, if he can do an EB5 it may be a different story, as money talks here, even though you don't have to contribute anything more than the $500,000! overiding all the other immigration injustices! Do I sound bitter? I sure am!!

Yep. That's the same rationale they use for denying B2 visas in most third world countries, and that's for people who have never been to the US, never overstayed any visa, and never been the subject of a ban.

[Anh map 2,098]

What pair of shoes are you talking about?

There appeared to be changes in policy re: VWP adjustment of status in the past year. This "clarification" may be the 2nd shoe where things are moving back to where they were and the cases will be adjudicated rather than being put on hold.

No need to pick a fight with Jim. He's very well versed in the subject.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

There appeared to be changes in policy re: VWP adjustment of status in the past year. This "clarification" may be the 2nd shoe where things are moving back to where they were and the cases will be adjudicated rather than being put on hold.

No need to pick a fight with Jim. He's very well versed in the subject.

I'm certainly not picking a fight. I asked him what he meant.

You are an organizer, right?

[wshc 46]

A point and a question -

IMO this is the right direction to go in, at least at is applies to AOS of a spouse. If one enters on the VWP and then does AOS so what? Sorry if one comes from a country that can't enter on the VWP, but why should the person from the VWP country not be able to take advantage of being a citizen of a country that participates in the VWP? To be jealous seems childish to me, like being jealous of your neighbor that has better health care because he works for IBM and you work for Fred's burger joint and don't have any health insurance. It's not your neighbor’s fault that you are at Fred's.

Question - any chance that people that overstayed, left the country and upon attempted reentry was denied and did a voluntary return to their home country and are now in the I-130/DS-230 process from abroad being able to enter without any ban once approved at the foreign consulate, (without a waiver)?

[Myopia 93]

Just as a reply to the person you know, Myopia, who is eight years through a ten year ban and intending to come back on a B1/2 visa, I was told by the London Embassy that you cannot get a B visa if you have clearly shown intent to live here. I was actually refused one, as I had previously had an E2 status, on that basis, and told that these were the rules they had to follow. Of course, if he can do an EB5 it may be a different story, as money talks here, even though you don't have to contribute anything more than the $500,000! overiding all the other immigration injustices! Do I sound bitter? I sure am!!

He was married to a woman here at the time. I dont even know if they divorced. I know he has had no contact with her for years. He actually has had quite the interesting time business wise since he left the US and EB5 may well be his course of action!

[Myopia 93]

There appeared to be changes in policy re: VWP adjustment of status in the past year. This "clarification" may be the 2nd shoe where things are moving back to where they were and the cases will be adjudicated rather than being put on hold.

No need to pick a fight with Jim. He's very well versed in the subject.

She was just asking a question. The shoe dropping really is in reference to the other VWP thread that I had started.

Here's the link. The last post actually has the memo from the USCIS intranet.

Other VWP thread

Here's the USCIS intranet wording.

USCIS Intranet

[Moomin 292]

I have to disagree with some of you. While I think in some cases it's okay due to circumstances trying to adjust status from VWP I also believe VWP is something you recieve as a country. If there are too many people trying to pull off the same trick the VWP will be revoked, not only for that individual but for the country. It's been a pleasure for me not having to be issued a visa before going to the states but that pleasure comes with a responsibility, at least in my eyes. If not for my own sake, then atleast for people traveling in the future.

That's why I'm not going to compare any other tourist visa issued to an individual from a country outside of the VWP.

[Myopia 93]

I have to disagree with some of you. While I think in some cases it's okay due to circumstances trying to adjust status from VWP I also believe VWP is something you recieve as a country. If there are too many people trying to pull off the same trick the VWP will be revoked, not only for that individual but for the country. It's been a pleasure for me not having to be issued a visa before going to the states but that pleasure comes with a responsibility, at least in my eyes. If not for my own sake, then atleast for people traveling in the future.

That's why I'm not going to compare any other tourist visa issued to an individual from a country outside of the VWP.

You dont have to. Its USCIS who do.

[Myopia 93]

I do wonder will happen to those that overstay significantly and are out of status, but stay under the radar. Will the government also be doing a better job of keeping up with those that are out of status, or will it continue to be that those that overstay are not put in removal proceedings until they are arrested or do something that calls attention to him/herself?

I don't think there will be any difference, maybe some scrutiny as to how your lived in those years. The fact is ICE never gave a high priority to people who were living here illegally without any contact with authorities. If you managed to stay under the radar for so long then adjusting status when able/needed/allowed would be the same with a more lengthy overstay.

The ten year ban is in place for anyone who overstayed 3 years regardless of whether it is 3 years or 30.

@ Jim--I have my money on the idea that USCIS San Diego are still going to be denying VWP adjustments regardless.

PS. I wish I knew how to multi quote. It doesn't seem to work for me.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Myopia

[Myopia 93]

Oops double posted.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Myopia

[mof 15]

I have to disagree with some of you. While I think in some cases it's okay due to circumstances trying to adjust status from VWP I also believe VWP is something you recieve as a country. If there are too many people trying to pull off the same trick the VWP will be revoked, not only for that individual but for the country. It's been a pleasure for me not having to be issued a visa before going to the states but that pleasure comes with a responsibility, at least in my eyes. If not for my own sake, then atleast for people traveling in the future.

That's why I'm not going to compare any other tourist visa issued to an individual from a country outside of the VWP.

But isn't that exactly what USCIS policy is? In certain circumstances, it is okay to adjust from VWP - that's why the decision to grant adjustment is discretionary.

I do agree with you that using VWP comes with certain responsibilities - but so does entering with a visitor visa. Visitors from VWP countries are simply granted a certain privilege, namely, less bureaucracy and more "trust," if you will.

I don't know if people from VWP countries can even apply for a B1/B2 visa if they only intent to stay for less than 90 days. What would be the point of that? I am sure that any embassy worker would think it rather odd. At any rate, it seems a bit silly that a person from a VWP country could then, potentially, apply for a 90 day visa, enter the US, and suddenly it is alright to adjust status. No intent, of course. Still the same person, still the same country of origin, still the same lack of intent. To me, that makes absolutely no sense. Seems like it makes no sense to USCIS, either.

Edited April 12, 2011 by mof

[VanessaTony 3,567]

VWP entrants have always been scrutinized at entry as potential status adjustees.

I was never "scrutinised". I got asked "what is your purpose", I replied "visiting a friend", my prints were taken, my photo taken, then my passport was stamped and off I went. I never had to show any ties to Australia. I didn't feel scrutinised at all, it (with hindsight now) was the same as when I entered with my GC, easy.

I agree that with this door being opened it might be harder to enter on the VWP.. not impossible but they might might actually ask everyone for evidence of ties and be less lenient... it's not against the rules for them to do so and what they should be doing anyway (not that I didn't appreciate having an easy time of it).

[k84 11]

Allowing VWPs to apply for AOS pretty much makes applying for all other visas before coming here irrelevant. Why bother applying for any other other visas if you can just come here as a tourist and adjust status if you feel like staying?

People who overstay their visa have broken the law, and once again the Government is looking to reward those people. Where is the incentive not to overstay if all you have to do to protect yourself (and eventually become a LPR) is apply for AOS?

Things like this annoy me. Most of us here did everything the legal way, put our lives on hold for months on end and paid the required costs, and now they will let anyone do it without a valid visa?

There is something seriously wrong with that.

[k84 11]

I was never "scrutinised". I got asked "what is your purpose", I replied "visiting a friend", my prints were taken, my photo taken, then my passport was stamped and off I went. I never had to show any ties to Australia. I didn't feel scrutinised at all, it (with hindsight now) was the same as when I entered with my GC, easy.

Same here. I have always believed it can be easy or hard depending on the country of citizenship, and maybe we as Australians have it easy coming here as tourists compared to citizens of some other countries.

The few times I came here using the VWP, all they ask is where you're staying and what for, and that's it. Half the time they don't even look at you, with the exception of taking the photo. It's an extremely easy and non-stressful process.