3 year since becoming a PR....

[WillG 0]

I am unsure how to interpret this language the three years requirement is usually stated as "since becoming a permanent resident". However, when someone enters on K1 visa, gets married in the 90 days and files a Application for Adjustment of Status they are technically legal residents but does this time count towards the three years or does the three years only start running once the Green card shows up? That would seem a bit weird since when the Green card shows up has more to do with bureaucratic process than anything else.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

[Inky 1,111]

only the date on the green card.

[WillG 0]

only the date on the green card.

...and the date on the green card is what? The day it is approved or backdated to when the application was made?

[OKflyboy 35]

...and the date on the green card is what? The day it is approved or backdated to when the application was made?

the date on the card

yes, that would be the date of approval

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I am unsure how to interpret this language the three years requirement is usually stated as "since becoming a permanent resident". However, when someone enters on K1 visa, gets married in the 90 days and files a Application for Adjustment of Status they are technically legal residents but does this time count towards the three years or does the three years only start running once the Green card shows up? That would seem a bit weird since when the Green card shows up has more to do with bureaucratic process than anything else.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

No they are NOT "technically legal residents" until they actually are APPROVED. That would simply be ridiculous if that were the case. Not everyone is ELIGIBLE to adjust status yet you want them to be "technically legal residents" as soon as they apply? Would you say people are "technically visitors" the minute they apply for a visitor visa? Or "technically a licenced driver" when they first apply to take the test? Or "technically pregnant" once they start having unprotected sex? There is a process. People need to be appropriately vetted and approved, simply applying means nothing.

There is a "resident since" date on the greencard, that, as it sounds, is the date you became an LPR.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Vanessa&Tony

[WillG 0]

No they are NOT "technically legal residents" until they actually are APPROVED. That would simply be ridiculous if that were the case. Not everyone is ELIGIBLE to adjust status yet you want them to be "technically legal residents" as soon as they apply? Would you say people are "technically visitors" the minute they apply for a visitor visa? Or "technically a licenced driver" when they first apply to take the test? Or "technically pregnant" once they start having unprotected sex? There is a process. People need to be appropriately vetted and approved, simply applying means nothing.

There is a "resident since" date on the greencard, that, as it sounds, is the date you became an LPR.

OK I got it but I have to say it is a bit odd... to get a K1 visa you have already gone through a vetting process and once you are married it would seem to me that the law would "look back" to minimally the date you got married and not rely on an arbitrary date when some bureaucratic managed to get to your application for a green card. Also the comparison above to driver's licensees and pregnancy is frankly a bit insulting and not at all to the point and K1 visa holders and not exactly equal to someone who just applied for a visitors visa. If you take a good look at the Adjustment of status process it is essentially a repeat of the K1 process as in just checking to make sure you actually did get married and you actually can support your spouse so there is no good policy reason in such cases not to back date the time requirements for naturalization purposes.

[Inky 1,111]

A K-1 visa is only letting you to move to the USA and get married it does not give you a legal permanent resident status. Filing the AOS gives you the legal permanent resident status when you obtain the green card.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

OK I got it but I have to say it is a bit odd... to get a K1 visa you have already gone through a vetting process and once you are married it would seem to me that the law would "look back" to minimally the date you got married and not rely on an arbitrary date when some bureaucratic managed to get to your application for a green card. Also the comparison above to driver's licensees and pregnancy is frankly a bit insulting and not at all to the point and K1 visa holders and not exactly equal to someone who just applied for a visitors visa. If you take a good look at the Adjustment of status process it is essentially a repeat of the K1 process as in just checking to make sure you actually did get married and you actually can support your spouse so there is no good policy reason in such cases not to back date the time requirements for naturalization purposes.

If it were that simple then people wouldn't get denied. Some people use people to get the K1 and once they're here cant hide their true feelings. You're right, the K1 IS different to a visitors visa but it's the same in that you expressed the thought that just applying for something makes it so. Licences and pregnancies were a fine analogy, just STARTING sometimes, just APPLYING for something, again, doesn't make it so. They're great example of how your idea of "applying" being "technically an LPR" is so incredibly wrong. It's a bureaucratic process for sure, but oh well.

[ceadsearc 516]

Someone on a K-1 becomes a legal resident on the date their green card, just like anyone else who goes through adjustment of status (such as a K-3 or someone adjusting from a tourist visa, etc.) Yes, your relationship has been vetted at an earlier stage but that does not necessarily mean anything, because people lie or are inadmissible or any other number of reasons that, though uncommon, leads to someone getting a K-1 and not getting approved. Occasionally, people come on a K-1 and don't even marry. The only people who enter the country as legal residents already are those who come on a CR-1 or IR-1.

Regardless, the 3 years starts from the date on your green card and not a day before.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

The K-1 is technically a non-immigrant visa.

[WillG 0]

Someone on a K-1 becomes a legal resident on the date their green card, just like anyone else who goes through adjustment of status (such as a K-3 or someone adjusting from a tourist visa, etc.) Yes, your relationship has been vetted at an earlier stage but that does not necessarily mean anything, because people lie or are inadmissible or any other number of reasons that, though uncommon, leads to someone getting a K-1 and not getting approved. Occasionally, people come on a K-1 and don't even marry. The only people who enter the country as legal residents already are those who come on a CR-1 or IR-1.

Regardless, the 3 years starts from the date on your green card and not a day before.

Ok I understand but frankly not backdating the time for K1's who then get vetted again through the Adjustment of status process and are found to be "oh my! exactly what they said they were" is a nothing but a bureaucratic step that makes no policy sense. Of course I understand the process of double checking to make sure K1's actually did marry and it was not a fraud but once the conclusion is "gee you really are married and great welcome to the USA" what exactly is the policy reason for then saying "well gee you have been here for a year already but sorry we are going to start the naturalization clock running today ...that is the day we the bureaucrats finally got around to acknowledging that you did everything by the book, not the day you actually started legally living in the USA.

As for T&V 's comments I never expected flaming on visajourney and particularly not flaming that is irrational at its core. Just because it's bureaucratic does not make it "oh well" and I know it is certainly bureaucratically possible to distinguish between those people who in fact followed all protocol properly and should therefore deserve some minor consideration ...like back dating the naturalization time to when then got married, and those people who are the reason for the Adjustment of status procedure (to make sure it is on the up and up). Nobody, certainly not me ever suggested that simply applying should be good enough rather that once a decision has been handed down the time the process took to get there should not count against a legitimate petitioners path to naturalization. That is a very legitimate argument one that frankly should be injected into the coming reform of the immigration law.

[ceadsearc 516]

Ok I understand but frankly not backdating the time for K1's who then get vetted again through the Adjustment of status process and are found to be "oh my! exactly what they said they were" is a nothing but a bureaucratic step that makes no policy sense. Of course I understand the process of double checking to make sure K1's actually did marry and it was not a fraud but once the conclusion is "gee you really are married and great welcome to the USA" what exactly is the policy reason for then saying "well gee you have been here for a year already but sorry we are going to start the naturalization clock running today ...that is the day we the bureaucrats finally got around to acknowledging that you did everything by the book, not the day you actually started legally living in the USA.

You make some valid points. But unfortunately, that's not how the law is right now so your 3-year date will be based on what's on your green card. Perhaps this thread will make others with similar concerns choose to go the CR-1 route instead.

[james&olya 1,121]

Ok I understand but frankly not backdating the time for K1's who then get vetted again through the Adjustment of status process and are found to be "oh my! exactly what they said they were" is a nothing but a bureaucratic step that makes no policy sense. Of course I understand the process of double checking to make sure K1's actually did marry and it was not a fraud but once the conclusion is "gee you really are married and great welcome to the USA" what exactly is the policy reason for then saying "well gee you have been here for a year already but sorry we are going to start the naturalization clock running today ...that is the day we the bureaucrats finally got around to acknowledging that you did everything by the book, not the day you actually started legally living in the USA.

As for T&V 's comments I never expected flaming on visajourney and particularly not flaming that is irrational at its core. Just because it's bureaucratic does not make it "oh well" and I know it is certainly bureaucratically possible to distinguish between those people who in fact followed all protocol properly and should therefore deserve some minor consideration ...like back dating the naturalization time to when then got married, and those people who are the reason for the Adjustment of status procedure (to make sure it is on the up and up). Nobody, certainly not me ever suggested that simply applying should be good enough rather that once a decision has been handed down the time the process took to get there should not count against a legitimate petitioners path to naturalization. That is a very legitimate argument one that frankly should be injected into the coming reform of the immigration law.

Your argument certainly has merit. Unfortunately the opposing point of view also has a certain logic behind it. I would agree with you in advocating for the changes you propose. Unfortunately, it will come too late to make any difference for you and I.

[visapetition 2]

What if the card was lost en route and they mailed a replacement - would the date still be the old one?

[ceadsearc 516]

What if the card was lost en route and they mailed a replacement - would the date still be the old one?

Yes, the date on your card is based on when your petition was approved. When you remove conditions you'll still have been a resident since X date.