Filing for I 130 and I 485 with I 94 expired

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

It's not a rule for USCIS. That's all I'll say. You are welcome to your opinion.

[aosapplicant 3]

It's not a rule for USCIS. That's all I'll say. You are welcome to your opinion.

Chill out. My reply clearly stated I am not attorney, that it is not a legal advise,

besides it was not addressed to you and what you think is too unimportant to me

to start an argument over it now.

Just don't forget: bench ruled case precedent is something many refer to , use as basic frame

and interpretation of vaguely written law and it has power of authority when it comes to court

argument unless there is another contradicting rule in different jurisdiction

that gets decided by higher court.

P.S. Why people on this board struggle to be difficult and argumentative with each other?

Edited March 3, 2012 by aosapplicant

[jdh 103]

Chill out. My reply clearly stated I am not attorney, that it is not a legal advise,

P.S. Why people on this board struggle to be difficult and argumentative with each other?

I think it is more that they struggle with your consistently pompous attitude. It's of the kind that are never welcome on any forum.

[aosapplicant 3]

I think it is more that they struggle with your consistently pompous attitude. It's of the kind that are never welcome on any forum.

Read what you write It is the second time you call me names or use derogatory words to refer. I still refuse to return the favor.

Just wondering what is it that makes some think they are entitled to lash out anytime anyone expresses an opinion that is

different from their own?

Edited March 3, 2012 by aosapplicant

[Little_My 464]

"What About the 30/60 Day Rule?

The famous "30/60 day rule" can be found in 9 FAM 40.63 N4.7. In a nutshell, the rule states that in the event that a B-2 visitor informs an immigration officer that his or her visit is for tourism, and the visitor violates this status by doing something contrary to B-2 conditions (eg. get married and take up permanent residence), there will be a presumption of fraudulent misrepresentation if the violation happened within 30 days of admission, or there will be rebuttable presumption that if the violation happened within 60 days of admission.

It is important to note, however, that the "30/60 day rule" is not a substantive rule. It is merely a procedural rule as to when and how a consular determination of inadmissibility under 212(a)(6)© is to be reviewed by the Advisory Opinion Office in Washington DC (which no longer happens). Previously (several years ago) all 212(a)(6)© determinations had to be sent to the Administrative Office.

So today, the 30/60 day rule is meaningless in the adjustment of status context. However, USCIS still misapplies the 30/60 day rule, while immigration attorneys over rely on it. CIS uses it inappropriately as a sword on a bright line test, while attorneys misuse it as shield thinking they are always safe after 60 days."

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

Also, to address your latest question - as someone who replied to a previous poster with: "besides it was not addressed to you and what you think is too unimportant to me", you might also want to examine your own delivery of responses before asking why other people are lashing out on you.

to start an argument over it now.

[aosapplicant 3]

"What About the 30/60 Day Rule?

The famous "30/60 day rule" can be found in 9 FAM 40.63 N4.7. In a nutshell, the rule states that in the event that a B-2 visitor informs an immigration officer that his or her visit is for tourism, and the visitor violates this status by doing something contrary to B-2 conditions (eg. get married and take up permanent residence), there will be a presumption of fraudulent misrepresentation if the violation happened within 30 days of admission, or there will be rebuttable presumption that if the violation happened within 60 days of admission.

It is important to note, however, that the "30/60 day rule" is not a substantive rule. It is merely a procedural rule as to when and how a consular determination of inadmissibility under 212(a)(6)© is to be reviewed by the Advisory Opinion Office in Washington DC (which no longer happens). Previously (several years ago) all 212(a)(6)© determinations had to be sent to the Administrative Office.

So today, the 30/60 day rule is meaningless in the adjustment of status context. However, USCIS still misapplies the 30/60 day rule, while immigration attorneys over rely on it. CIS uses it inappropriately as a sword on a bright line test, while attorneys misuse it as shield thinking they are always safe after 60 days."

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

Also, to address your latest question - as someone who replied to a previous poster with: "besides it was not addressed to you and what you think is too unimportant to me", you might also want to examine your own delivery of responses before asking why other people are lashing out on you.

to start an argument over it now.

I admit that at some point you will get shrewd response from me if you poke me unprovoked, merely because I expressed an opinion you

were not pleased with.

This is America, people here have opinions and if I feel strongly about standing by it then God himself , if existed and descended from Heavens, would not force me to yield to a shameless demand to suppress my free speech so it would please some arrogant uneducated dimwit out there. So far I was just wondering and somewhat amazed. After all, I am just sharing my opinion and these posters lash out at me for no other reason than being displeased with what I think.

As to article posted by Hassan Abdullah,Esq., I would be skeptical and not take it as an authoritative opinion vs. my reading of actual Court ruling that set 30-60 day rule precedent, with Judges reasoning and interpretation of underlying INA.

Hassan Abdullah may be right, but he just as well could be wrong.

Substantial equities allows one to file for waivers or overcome certain bans on benefits , but it is in no way to be mistaken and confused with case precedent which established a path to request fair adjudication requesting the benefit as opposed to petitioning the ruling authority for mercy and leniency in deciding the outcome of the otherwise doomed case.

[ValerieA 350]

This topic has been addressed a number of times in this forum. Here is the quote from the Adjudicator's Field Manual:

Matter of Cavazos

, 17 I. & N. Dec. 215 (BIA, 1980)

. In the absence of other adverse factors, an application for adjustment by an immediate relative should generally be granted in the exercise of discretion notwithstanding the fact that the applicant entered as a nonimmigrant with a preconceived intention to remain.

·

Matter of Ibrahim

, 18 I. & N. Dec. 55 (BIA, 1981). The benefits of

Matter of Cavazos

,

supra

, are limited to immediate relatives, and an application for adjustment by a fifth preference immigrant with a preconceived intention to remain is properly denied in the exercise of discretion.

USCIS Link

Now can we please stop giving misinformation to people? Intent is not an issue for immediate relatives of a US citizen!

[aosapplicant 3]

This topic has been addressed a number of times in this forum. Here is the quote from the Adjudicator's Field Manual:

USCIS Link

Now can we please stop giving misinformation to people? Intent is not an issue for immediate relatives of a US citizen!

Speaking for myself: I never gave "misinformation" to people.

I specifically and repeatedly noted that I was not an attorney, that my knowledge of statutes was limited, that whatever I opine is not a legal advise and only my individual opinion (Free Speech Amendment) and the OP can do whatever they wish to do about their own case (none of my business).

As to AFM.

#1. AFM is not a law or regulation

#2. AFM that is publicly available is an edited and not most up to date AFM.

I have seen pages of AFM that apply to processing of certain peitions which, upon closer look, reveal

an outdated procedure as the new editions of forms necessitate answering certain questions that did not

exist at the time the currently available AFM appears to be related to.

So, just because there is a link to AFM that shows how to process certain petition, doesn't mean that

this is how those petitions are being processed (or regulations applied) TODAY.

#3. Even the AFM you posted makes it clear that granting of the benefit in cases you describe

is DISCRETIONARY (that is not the same as "Approve the petition if approvable", but more like

"It is permissible to approve this petition if you , in YOUR DISCRETION feel/think it should

be approved, provided there are no other adversary factors involved".

#4. Just my idle curiosity asks here: if an individual , like that cited Mexican national,

can have a fiance and can come to US and can marry the same day and apply for AOS right away

then why hundreds of thousands of people wait for K visa processing abroad? Are they all illiterate

and unaware of this regulation?

Something doesn't add up here.

Now, as I have repeated many times, I am neither attorney nor write

any of this to give anyone a legal advise. I am just a layman, an AOS applicant myself , but from what

I have read and known about INA, about case laws and regulations (which, again, is a limited knowledge

since practicing Law is not my trade) I came to very firm conclusion that for all the complexity of laws

and regulations in final analysis it all makes sense and has certain purpose and logic to it if you spend time

to fully analyze and comprehend it.

What you posted raises my doubt (appears as if it is not a complete picture, or may be not even current picture, since

both cited matters relate to pre-1986 case law era and we had 2 immigration reform laws passed since then (1986 and 1996),

both of which imposed harsh penalties and limited discretion for any type of violators).

Are there other sources that confirm validity of the posted information? After all, it could be a serious misinformation

that could have grave consequences for any visitor of this forum if it indeed happened to be an outdated page from AFM

that is no longer in force when adjudicating AOS petitions.

[ValerieA 350]

Since that page is taken directly from the USCIS site, I am comfortable it is the most up-to-date information available. Also, having hung around this forum for three years, I have never seen anyone denied for intent. My case was certainly questionable, and the subject was never broached.

[aosapplicant 3]

Since that page is taken directly from the USCIS site, I am comfortable it is the most up-to-date information available. Also, having hung around this forum for three years, I have never seen anyone denied for intent. My case was certainly questionable, and the subject was never broached.

I assure you, even the link you posted directs you to page where USCIS disclaims that published AFM is for public

distribution, is an edited version and is not up to date version of AFM currently being used by USCIS.

What visa have you entered on?

Looking at your timeline it's clear that you had an immediate relative petition

in approval stages when you entered US.

[ValerieA 350]

Notice the AOS part of my timeline?

[aosapplicant 3]

Notice the AOS part of my timeline?

I did, but there are more than one non-immigrant categories to

visit. I am genuinely curious.

[ValerieA 350]

I'm Canadian. I came across the border on a B-2 (the automatic one for us) while my CR-1 was pending. Circumstances changed, and I switched to AOS.

[aosapplicant 3]

I'm Canadian. I came across the border on a B-2 (the automatic one for us) while my CR-1 was pending. Circumstances changed, and I switched to AOS.

The OP is not Canadian, she didn't come from the country that has bi-lateral agreements like US-Canada and doesn't really fit into

what you describe to be your circumstances.

I still do not think that anyone can simply cross the border and change their mind next day (marry, apply for AOS) without repercussions.

[jdh 103]

The OP is not Canadian, she didn't come from the country that has bi-lateral agreements like US-Canada and doesn't really fit into

what you describe to be your circumstances.

I still do not think that anyone can simply cross the border and change their mind next day (marry, apply for AOS) without repercussions.

Well..Guess you would be wrong, then.