Preconceived Intent to marry and adjust status

[Boiler 45,521]

Agreed.

But it will keep on happening, has for as long as I have been here.

[ManCharsey 254]

Great piece ValerieA. It is really worrying reading comments to posts and seeing people doing that all the time. There are several ways to achieve the same result and as long as someone chooses to use a route that differs from mine does not mean I should use scare tactics to push them off or get mad. The law deals with legitimacy and it is within the confines of the law that federal agencies work not opinions or how morally right it seems to be or not. Therefore, as long as the law is not being broken and someone is using a legitimate route, albeit different from what you use, if they need help, they should be helped and offered good advice than to be scared off and told how what they are doing is visa fraud.

AOS has been going on for several years..probably more years than the age of many of us here in the forum. If immigration thought something was wrong with it, it would have been scrapped decades ago.

[MacUK 983]

Great piece ValerieA. It is really worrying reading comments to posts and seeing people doing that all the time. There are several ways to achieve the same result and as long as someone chooses to use a route that differs from mine does not mean I should use scare tactics to push them off or get mad. The law deals with legitimacy and it is within the confines of the law that federal agencies work not opinions or how morally right it seems to be or not. Therefore, as long as the law is not being broken and someone is using a legitimate route, albeit different from what you use, if they need help, they should be helped and offered good advice than to be scared off and told how what they are doing is visa fraud.

AOS has been going on for several years..probably more years than the age of many of us here in the forum. If immigration thought something was wrong with it, it would have been scrapped decades ago.

There's a difference between scare tactics and letting people know the risks of their chosen path.

Before you say about it being perfectly legal to adjust status once within the US can I say that I totally agree with that.

The risk with the preconceived intent to immigrate route would be before that. When someone enters the US on a non immigrant visa/vwp with the intent of staying.

If they rock up to the airport and get taken in for further questioning with things in their possession that indicate that they plan on staying then they are reasonably likely to be put on a flight straight back to their home country with a denied entry, and possibly a revoked visa.

As an example (different country but same principle), I was reading a UK immigration forum recently. A 'tourist' from Australia lands at Heathrow and is taken back for questioning. In her bags are 20 copies of her CV, qualification certificates from catering college, references from employers, a few sets of chefs whites and a set of professional chefs knives.

Blatantly obvious she's come to the UK to immigrate and work on a tourist visa so she's back on the next plane home.

So yes, once someone is in the States it's perfectly legal to adjust status, the visa fraud risk with all its consequences is when they apply to enter at the POE using the wrong visa category for the purposes of their trip.

So while there may be absolutely no examples of people where their application to AOS have been denied due to intent, how many people have been turned away at the POE due to immigrant intent?

If people want to use that route to get to the States then bully for them, but it is only fair that they should be aware of any risks, however small.

Edited January 19, 2014 by MacUK

[ManCharsey 254]

MacUK that's a valid point and I would agree with that. I just have a problem with people accusing anybody who talks about adjusting status from a B1/B2, F1, J1 etc visas as committing visa fraud. Yes they need to be wary of the lows and highs of their chosen route but it should be done constructively in such a way that it is not intimidating but rather informing them. We're all here to learn and help each other and that should be the ultimate goal.

[ValerieA 350]

MacUK, when someone comes on here asking for AOS advice and they are not in the US, we all explain to them that it is not allowed to enter the US with intent to adjust status on VWP or a B-2 visa. We all agree on that, although granted some approaches are more respectful of an honest question than others that simply attack. I wonder if some of those people who got attacked because they simply DID NOT KNOW never came back to VJ for help with their K-1 or CR-1 visas because of the impression of our community that was left with them. That would be a pure shame.

[Boiler 45,521]

More likely that they entered and adjusted.

[NikLR 13,227]

When people ask, "Can I go to the USA on my tourist visa and adjust my status?" The answer is no, not unless you plan on lying to get into the USA. If you're already in the USA, then yes you can.

In my honest opinion they SHOULD get rid of AOS. Why? Simply to make B1/B2 visas easier to obtain. Of course then they may have the problem with more illegals. The other problem is income. The USCIS would make a fraction of what it makes now which is why they likely will never get rid of AOS. If anything, the USCIS would rather people AOS than any other way because it means more money for them, and just as much work as any petition.

Edited January 19, 2014 by NLR

[aussie_jason 195]

I am one of the ones guilty of spreading this misinformation so for that I apologize, however I think it should still be a red flag when it comes to proving the marriage is bona fide especially those that meet their spouse while on the VWP and get married within that 90 days. I also think that getting married to a USC shouldn't result in an automatic forgiveness of any overstays.

Adjustment of Status just doesn't really make sense for tourist visas when there is already a process for fiancees and spouses thar are outside of the US, however it does make sense from other longer term visas like work & student visas as then it is more likely for a couple to meet, court each other, date each other, get engaged and eventually get married in a more traditional timeframe while doing what they have the original visa for.

I wish we could separate out Adjustment of Status from Tourist & Visitor Visas to its own forum, I feel the AOS from work based visas questions get buried by the tourist & visa questions and get lost in the noise.

Either that or just abolish the entire system and let people to live where they want as long as they obey the laws of where they are living.

[f&c 50]

I am one of the ones guilty of spreading this misinformation so for that I apologize, however I think it should still be a red flag when it comes to proving the marriage is bona fide especially those that meet their spouse while on the VWP and get married within that 90 days. I also think that getting married to a USC shouldn't result in an automatic forgiveness of any overstays.

Adjustment of Status just doesn't really make sense for tourist visas when there is already a process for fiancees and spouses thar are outside of the US, however it does make sense from other longer term visas like work & student visas as then it is more likely for a couple to meet, court each other, date each other, get engaged and eventually get married in a more traditional timeframe while doing what they have the original visa for.

I wish we could separate out Adjustment of Status from Tourist & Visitor Visas to its own forum, I feel the AOS from work based visas questions get buried by the tourist & visa questions and get lost in the noise.

Either that or just abolish the entire system and let people to live where they want as long as they obey the laws of where they are living.

I agree that people on VWP who meet their spouse and marry within 90 days should be scrutinized further, however many people overstay months or years before meeting and marrying. Often the American partner may not be aware of their partner's immigration status until they have been in a relationship for awhile. I have read several comments in the various forums stating that spouses of USCs should not be granted overstay forgiveness and other privelages. I disagree. Citzenship does and should have certain advantages that LPRs do not. If not, why not eliminate LPRs and make everyone citizens? Perhaps USCIS should have people who file AOS on VWP and other visas pay a significant fine and/or extend the time it takes for citizenship eligibility. Until USCIS eliminates the ability to adjust on various visas, people will continue to do so.

[mrjack 9]

After reading through many of the forums posts, I have noticed a trend in the advice or warnings given to people who ask questions here and one such VERY common warning is : preconceived intent to marry and adjust status.

I think it is way overdue that people continue to issue such warnings or 'scare' people with that. The fact is under immigration law, USCIS can NOT deny any one an adjustment of status or a green card application under preconceived intent to marry and adjust status. This was made into immigration law in 1987 based on these cases:

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/INT/HTML/INT/0-0-0-65/0-0-0-4012.html

Which was enforced by a US court and the evidence is in a USCIS publication.

A denial can however be issued under misrepresentation of facts or willful concealing of material evidence all of which are a subset of visa fraud. So as examples -

1. Someone who applies for a tourist visa and on the DS160 form states that they are married, to establish ties back home and upon the receipt of the tourist visa and subsequent traveling to the US, marries an American citizen and tries to adjust status can be issued a denial under misrepresentation of facts or willful concealing of material evidence to engage in visa fraud.

2. Someone who hides their criminal history in their application and who is later found can also be issued a denial under both clauses.

3. Someone who comes in with a tourist visa and has preconceived intent to marry and adjust status upon being able to go beyond the customs and border patrol agents at the POE and they are not able to establish preconceived intent Can NEVER be denied their green card/adjustment of status application by the clause of preconceived intent to marry and adjust status. USCIS can only probe into the bonafide nature of the relationship or marriage and that is all.

Preconceived intent to marry and adjust status is ONLY established at the port of entry and when there is no such establishment and the said traveler enters the US. It can NEVER be used in immigration law anymore. Same as the 30/60/90 rule.

So I think it would be helpful if people desist from issuing warnings or advice related to preconceived intent to marry and adjust status as it does no longer hold in immigration law since 1987 and since 1987 there has not been a single documented case of its usage.

Thank you for taking the time to read!

BS. My wife and I had close to an hour of questioning about intent during our visa interview. The IO tried to twist words and play games in an attempt to admit intent. No doubt she would have denied us if she could have.

FYI, we had been married for 5 years at the time of our interview and had 2 children together(10 years and 11 months). Crbas were issued on both children. No question we had a legitimate relationship. In fact the IO only talked about intent for the hour.

[ManCharsey 254]

MrJack..Well your IO probably identified certain things that made him/her probe you further on intent..and before I proceed further IF you read the post well, you would have noticed that it was indicated that preconceived intent alone can not be the basis for a denial. The IO has to establish a case of visa fraud which in it's schemes would INCLUDE preconceived intent with the ultimate purpose being to circumvent immigration procedures in order to acquire a green card but NOT to be in a real/bona fide relationship.

The ultimate reasons for marrying someone in the US and residing here SHOULD be because of love and a desire to be together and NOT because of a decision to reside and work in the US. If the latter precedes the former, then it is visa fraud..with or without preconceived intent. If the latter precedes the former, then with or without preconceived intent, there can't be a denial UNLESS some adverse factor comes to play.

Does it make sense now??

[Teddy B 17,252]

BS. My wife and I had close to an hour of questioning about intent during our visa interview. The IO tried to twist words and play games in an attempt to admit intent. No doubt she would have denied us if she could have.

FYI, we had been married for 5 years at the time of our interview and had 2 children together(10 years and 11 months). Crbas were issued on both children. No question we had a legitimate relationship. In fact the IO only talked about intent for the hour.

The USCIS most definitely can and will question some people about intent. Intent alone is not reason enough for denial, but it can lead to other indicators of fraud. They usually question people who have abused their visas in the past. How many years of overstay did your wife have before you filed for AOS?

[mrjack 9]

My wife and I married outside of the US and lived together for more than 10 years outside of the US. if either of you two had bothered to read the post I made then you would know that. We have CRBAs on both our children. I suggest you study about what a CRBA is and h you get one, especially when you are in married at the time, which was the case for our oldest. In simple terms, we had a bonafide ongoing relationship that was backed up with US State department proof.

We applied for AOS 5 months after arrival and with one month left otn her B2 visa. We didn't rent a place and I didn't take up employment until that time.

Ours was about the most open and shut case that could ever fall onto an IO's desk. What should have been a simple interview turned into an ordeal.

Let me first say what we were not asked: where we met, how we got married, whether the questions on the form were answered truthfully, if we have any joint accounts, insurance or property, any question on whether we had a bonafide marriage or not.

The ONLY questioning that took place in the interview was concerning intent and whether my wife lied to the visa officer or at the port of entry. The precise time in which we decided to stay came up many many times during our interview. She tried to trick us into saying we made the decision before we arrived and when that didn't work, she tried to get us to admit that it was in the first month. No doubt where she was headed. We were truthful so the witch's tricks didn't work. No doubt at all that she would have denied the AOS if my wife had said she had intent on staying in the us when she got the visa or when she arrived or even in the first 30 days.

After close to an hour of drilling, she terminated the interview and later that day we were approved.

I stand by calling you out for BS. Every thing you posted is theoretical and sounds good on paper and may even be correct, but it doesn't matter if the interviewer thinks otherwise. Anyone listening to either of you two is asking for trouble and will go into the interview unprepared. Luckily I didn't listen to all the 30/60 naysayers and we prepared for that line of questioning in the first place.

[Teddy B 17,252]

My wife and I married outside of the US and lived together for more than 10 years outside of the US. if either of you two had bothered to read the post I made then you would know that. We have CRBAs on both our children. I suggest you study about what a CRBA is and h you get one, especially when you are in married at the time, which was the case for our oldest. In simple terms, we had a bonafide ongoing relationship that was backed up with US State department proof.

We applied for AOS 5 months after arrival and with one month left otn her B2 visa. We didn't rent a place and I didn't take up employment until that time.

Ours was about the most open and shut case that could ever fall onto an IO's desk. What should have been a simple interview turned into an ordeal.

Let me first say what we were not asked: where we met, how we got married, whether the questions on the form were answered truthfully, if we have any joint accounts, insurance or property, any question on whether we had a bonafide marriage or not.

The ONLY questioning that took place in the interview was concerning intent and whether my wife lied to the visa officer or at the port of entry. The precise time in which we decided to stay came up many many times during our interview. She tried to trick us into saying we made the decision before we arrived and when that didn't work, she tried to get us to admit that it was in the first month. No doubt where she was headed. We were truthful so the witch's tricks didn't work. No doubt at all that she would have denied the AOS if my wife had said she had intent on staying in the us when she got the visa or when she arrived or even in the first 30 days.

After close to an hour of drilling, she terminated the interview and later that day we were approved.

I stand by calling you out for BS. Every thing you posted is theoretical and sounds good on paper and may even be correct, but it doesn't matter if the interviewer thinks otherwise. Anyone listening to either of you two is asking for trouble and will go into the interview unprepared. Luckily I didn't listen to all the 30/60 naysayers and we prepared for that line of questioning in the first place.

Your wife entered the US on a B2 visa with you, her US citizen husband and two US citizen kids (with CRBA's) after living abroad for more than 10 years and suddenly decides to AOS, and you wonder why she was grilled about intent?

You can call all the BS you want. The line of questioning about intent was more than justified.

[ValerieA 350]

No doubt at all that she would have denied the AOS if my wife had said she had intent on staying in the us when she got the visa or when she arrived or even in the first 30 days.

After close to an hour of drilling, she terminated the interview and later that day we were approved.

I stand by calling you out for BS. Every thing you posted is theoretical and sounds good on paper and may even be correct, but it doesn't matter if the interviewer thinks otherwise. Anyone listening to either of you two is asking for trouble and will go into the interview unprepared. Luckily I didn't listen to all the 30/60 naysayers and we prepared for that line of questioning in the first place.

You should have said "No doubt in my mind" because there is considerable doubt. Your wife did NOT get denied, so, yet again, we have not seen a case where someone was denied due to intent. And what the interviewer thinks does NOT matter. What matters is the handy little guide they all have and they have to follow.