She had a tourist visa and I married her. Help me keep her here...

[MrsP2010 20]

Just from my own experience, you should be fine with her going home and filing through the CR-1 route. I was on VWP and married within it, then overstayed for 5 months due to bad advice. It turned out luckily for me that it's a slap on the wrist at best if the VWP overystay is less than 6 months, so if she leaves and goes home while in it everything should be ok. I would double-check with an immigration lawyer, many will give you a free phone consultation. Read this http://www.visajourney.com/content/i130guide1

[MrsP2010 20]

Also, it's worth noting that things are a little rocky with adjustment of status after overstay - this was where our confusion came in, as many people assured us we would be fine. It turns out that mainly in San Diego they were (not sure about now) holding and even refusing AOS applications based on overstay. The advice we got from a very good SD-based lawyer was to go home and file CR-1 route before a 6-month or more overstay happened.

So to those advising that overstaying is fine, please don't, it not always is.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

OP's wife entered on a B visa. Not the VWP.

[MrsP2010 20]

OP's wife entered on a B visa. Not the VWP.

Ahh missed that little bit of info... as you were!

[RICARDO4EVA2 194]

http://www.ehow.com/how_5851427_married-tourist-visa.html

This link said nothing about overstay. The presence will be forgiven.

[Michael & Amy 3]

The CBP officer can make notes under your I-94 number that can be accessed during your AOS interview. If you came into the country and were questioned by the CBP officer and then during your AOS interview they do not parallel then you have just committed material misrepresentation.

For example:

CBP: what is your purpose in the US during your stay?

you: to visit Disney World and feed the dolphins!

CBP: do you have any family or a boyfriend in the US?

you: No, I just want to feed the dolphins!!

CBP: okay... (type, type, type)

6-months later...(version 1)

IO: how did you two meet?

you: we met while I was feeding dolphins!

IO: okay, odd..I mean interesting! (type, stamp, approved)

6-months later...(version 2)

IO: how did you two meet?

you: we met online, he came to my country and we got engaged and talked about feeding dolphins!

IO: OH, r..e..a..l..l..y...... (evil internal laugh)

Sorry, it's Friday and I am having wine.... :innocent:

Best post ever And a great explanation, too! It took a lot of reading to understand that - wish I'd had this post then...

[ceadsearc 516]

Goodness. There is so much bad and blatantly false advice in this post.

OP, Little_My outlined it perfectly for you.

If your spouse intended to stay, she cannot adjust status. She needs to return to her country and you guys need to file for a CR-1. As long as she leaves before her B-2 expires, she can continue to visit while it is processing.

If she did not intend to stay, you can file AOS. Some people don't "like" that but it's perfectly legal if she did not intend to stay.

You don't need a lawyer for any of the basic paperwork unless you have some other problem like criminal history. But you can of course get one if you want.

[Channah&Aaron 51]

; Like everyone else, I also have an opinion. What I would do if I were you is to file CR-1 since you two are married.

She has to go back to her home country for +/- 5 months though, but it has a lot of good things:

- legal way to immigrate

- cheaper than hiring a laywer

- gets her GC right after she arrived back in the US

- can work right after she arrived back in the US

- she won't be an illegal alien and be aimed at as "immigration purpose on a Visitor Visa" which can give her a BAN.

Like I said, there are other options, it's up to you which path you'd like to follow, just don't make it harder as it is when she is here illegally.

Good luck!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

The CBP officer can make notes under your I-94 number that can be accessed during your AOS interview. If you came into the country and were questioned by the CBP officer and then during your AOS interview they do not parallel then you have just committed material misrepresentation.

For example:

CBP: what is your purpose in the US during your stay?

you: to visit Disney World and feed the dolphins!

CBP: do you have any family or a boyfriend in the US?

you: No, I just want to feed the dolphins!!

CBP: okay... (type, type, type)

6-months later...(version 1)

IO: how did you two meet?

you: we met while I was feeding dolphins!

IO: okay, odd..I mean interesting! (type, stamp, approved)

6-months later...(version 2)

IO: how did you two meet?

you: we met online, he came to my country and we got engaged and talked about feeding dolphins!

IO: OH, r..e..a..l..l..y...... (evil internal laugh)

Sorry, it's Friday and I am having wine.... :innocent:

I can tell you were having wine last night.

The first time my now-husband came over, he flat told the CBP officer he was coming to meet a woman he had met online. The guy told him he hoped he had a good time.

And they let him back in the country about 10 weeks later for another visit.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say. CBP making notes is not uncommon. Bottom line is if they REALLY think you are intending to immigrate, they will turn you around.

; Like everyone else, I also have an opinion. What I would do if I were you is to file CR-1 since you two are married.

She has to go back to her home country for +/- 5 months though, but it has a lot of good things:

- legal way to immigrate

- cheaper than hiring a laywer

- gets her GC right after she arrived back in the US

- can work right after she arrived back in the US

- she won't be an illegal alien and be aimed at as "immigration purpose on a Visitor Visa" which can give her a BAN.

Like I said, there are other options, it's up to you which path you'd like to follow, just don't make it harder as it is when she is here illegally.

Good luck!

As has been said earlier, what the OP proposes is legal.

[ceadsearc 516]

;

- legal way to immigrate

- cheaper than hiring a laywer

- gets her GC right after she arrived back in the US

- can work right after she arrived back in the US

- she won't be an illegal alien and be aimed at as "immigration purpose on a Visitor Visa" which can give her a BAN.

Good luck!

Everyone of course can have their opinion, but what you're stating here to back up your opinion isn't telling the whole story. Adjusting status is also a legal option so long as she did not intend to stay here when she arrived, she does not need a lawyer regardless, and she is not and will not become an illegal immigrant either way because she is still in her period of authorized stay as her B2 has not expired and once she files AOS she will be in a new period of authorized stay. Also, adjusting from a visitor visa is common and IOs see it every day, and it wouldn't warrant a ban unless she had proven intent to immigrate as well as other mitigating factors since intent alone is not used to deny.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say. CBP making notes is not uncommon. Bottom line is if they REALLY think you are intending to immigrate, they will turn you around.

Making notes isn't uncommon, but it's more a matter of being asked by CBP if you are planning to get married/etc. or if you have a partner in the country and blatantly lying about it, and then trying to adjust.

[Little_My 464]

I can tell you were having wine last night.

The first time my now-husband came over, he flat told the CBP officer he was coming to meet a woman he had met online. The guy told him he hoped he had a good time.

And they let him back in the country about 10 weeks later for another visit.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say. CBP making notes is not uncommon. Bottom line is if they REALLY think you are intending to immigrate, they will turn you around.

As has been said earlier, what the OP proposes is legal.

Garfield was explaining misrepresentation at POE. When your husband came, he honestly told the CBP guy he was coming to see a woman, so there was no misrepresentation. Had he been asked "are you coming here to see a girl" and he had replied "no, there's no girl", that would have been misrepresentation.

Those statements are often written down by the CBP officers. Then, at the AOS stage applicants go above and beyond to show the length of their relationship to prove bonafide marriage - and woops, in the interview the IO pulls out a transcript of what the CBP officers typed into his computer when the intending immigrant entered the US. The immigrant's AOS paperwork shows transcripts of emails and chats and whatnots going back months before he/she entered the US, but yet when asked at POE, the intending immigrant had said there was no girl/boy in the US. Material misrepresentation, in black and white. Not that easy to come back from that.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Garfield was explaining misrepresentation at POE. When your husband came, he honestly told the CBP guy he was coming to see a woman, so there was no misrepresentation. Had he been asked "are you coming here to see a girl" and he had replied "no, there's no girl", that would have been misrepresentation.

Those statements are often written down by the CBP officers. Then, at the AOS stage applicants go above and beyond to show the length of their relationship to prove bonafide marriage - and woops, in the interview the IO pulls out a transcript of what the CBP officers typed into his computer when the intending immigrant entered the US. The immigrant's AOS paperwork shows transcripts of emails and chats and whatnots going back months before he/she entered the US, but yet when asked at POE, the intending immigrant had said there was no girl/boy in the US. Material misrepresentation, in black and white. Not that easy to come back from that.

Little_My, no offense but I've kind of been on immigration boards a few years. I work a pretty stressful job these days so I don't have time to hang around here much. You probably thought I don't know much about entry. So I appreciate the fact you want to help others. Since you want to do that, start looking beyond old wives tales and look into the facts.

Have you ever read of an adjustment case where the IO whips out a CBP transcript?

Seriously.

[Little_My 464]

Well, I am more than happy to admit no A) not being an immigration lawyer, and B) definitely not knowing everything there is to know about these processes - so, I'll gladly take advice and corrections from more knowledgeable members if something I state here is incorrect or just wrong. That is my understanding of misrepresentation at POE, and my understanding has also been that USCIS has full access to any notes taken at POE. If I was wrong about that, I stand corrected.

Also, just to note, I am not in the habit of listening to "old wives tales", here or anywhere else. I try my best to find legitimate and trustworthy sources when looking for information about immigration, or anything else for that matter. I also try my best to stay respectful towards other members here on VJ, even when I feel someone has made a statement I disagree with.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Well, I am more than happy to admit no A) not being an immigration lawyer, and B) definitely not knowing everything there is to know about these processes - so, I'll gladly take advice and corrections from more knowledgeable members if something I state here is incorrect or just wrong. That is my understanding of misrepresentation at POE, and my understanding has also been that USCIS has full access to any notes taken at POE. If I was wrong about that, I stand corrected.

Also, just to note, I am not in the habit of listening to "old wives tales", here or anywhere else. I try my best to find legitimate and trustworthy sources when looking for information about immigration, or anything else for that matter. I also try my best to stay respectful towards other members here on VJ, even when I feel someone has made a statement I disagree with.

CBP does make notes. USCIS has access to them, but not as easily as we think. You'd probably be surprised at the amount of authority/exchange of information/collaboration that does not exist between the different branches of the Department of Homeland Security.

That being said, there is case law which covers intent at the border as it relates to a petition to adjust status. I have no interest in the law firm linked, so I'm putting up their "layman's language" information for those interested in this discussion.

http://www.peerallylaw.com/en/content/view/562/

"Again, preconceived intent in and of itself is not a problem for immediate relative adjustments. Specifically, the adverse factor of preconceived intent is overcome by the "substantial (or significant) equities" present in immediate relative adjustments. This legal authority stems form Matter of Cavazos, 17 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980). "Substantial equities" is further clarified in Matter of Ibrahim, 18 I&N Dec. 55 (BIA 1981)."

[SaraDee 9]

The word "intent" will probably never be uttered at the interview.

I agree. It was definitely never mentioned in my interview. If they did plan to marry, then that is fraud. However,I feel like sometimes this forum can be a scary place for people who are trying to go through the process. Unless they go out of their way to let USCIS know they intended to marry, they will probably be OK. I don't condone fraud of course, but it seems like they just didn't know what they were doing.