Preconceived Intent to marry and adjust status

[Boiler 45,486]

Actually it was not, not relevant.

But this is hardly the first time we have seen a report of an interview where what appeared to be irrelevancies were focused on.

I appreciate that only a small percentage of those going through the process are on VJ, there are some other boards I flit by with smaller numbers. The commonality is:

Nobody seems to have been refused for immigrant intent.

A very small number have had it raised in their interviews, for what purpose remains unclear.

For the vast majority it never even comes up.

Now you never know quite what the truth is on a forum such as this, I assume that any report included spin, inevitable, I think it is also fair to assume that you have a higher percentage of unusual cases on VJ, age, income religion differences etc etc.

[Teddy B 17,252]

A good amount of people that have problems and post here about them, conveniently leave out the underlying reasons why.

[Boiler 45,486]

Once you have been on here for a while you get a feel, sometimes I have been wrong, not often.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Once you have been on here for a while you get a feel, sometimes I have been wrong, not often.

Yep.

[ManCharsey 254]

That is the truth teddy and Valerie. Most people leave out the underlying facts regarding their cases and just want people here to believe things on the surface.

Now MrJack since you are refusing to see inconsistencies in your case, I am going to split it up for you and present it to you for you to tell me what you would have done if you were the IO.

1. You are a US citizen and your wife was not nor was she a permanent resident at the time you guys met and were married

2. You guys lived outside the US for over 10 years and had more than 1 kids.

3. You MOST definitely knew you would eventually move out here to the US with her, even if not permanently atleast for sometime BUT you chose not to do anything regarding getting her to move here to the US.

Now in all your arguments you have stated that the IO kept hounding you on whether you or your wife lied to the immigration officers and about your intent. This is very justifiable and I would have done the same thing considering your case. Because the facts of your case made it look like you were actually trying to circumvent immigration procedures because trust me, you definitely could have done the best thing which was help her get the required visa in all the time you were outside the US with her but didn't do that and just waited till you moved here especially when her B2 visa was almost about to run out. Come on, who are you kidding here.

It's unfortunate that happened to you but I would say it was justifiable because from all indications, it appears to show regardless of the bonafide nature of you relationship. You assumed that path to circumvent immigration procedures. And for the umpteenth time, that would be visa fraud if you misrepresented facts or lied BUT preconceived intent alone can not be used to adjudicate a denial in a case. Take it or leave it. That is the truth!

[mrjack 9]

That is the truth teddy and Valerie. Most people leave out the underlying facts regarding their cases and just want people here to believe things on the surface.

Now MrJack since you are refusing to see inconsistencies in your case, I am going to split it up for you and present it to you for you to tell me what you would have done if you were the IO.

1. You are a US citizen and your wife was not nor was she a permanent resident at the time you guys met and were married

2. You guys lived outside the US for over 10 years and had more than 1 kids.

3. You MOST definitely knew you would eventually move out here to the US with her, even if not permanently atleast for sometime BUT you chose not to do anything regarding getting her to move here to the US.

Now in all your arguments you have stated that the IO kept hounding you on whether you or your wife lied to the immigration officers and about your intent. This is very justifiable and I would have done the same thing considering your case. Because the facts of your case made it look like you were actually trying to circumvent immigration procedures because trust me, you definitely could have done the best thing which was help her get the required visa in all the time you were outside the US with her but didn't do that and just waited till you moved here especially when her B2 visa was almost about to run out. Come on, who are you kidding here.

It's unfortunate that happened to you but I would say it was justifiable because from all indications, it appears to show regardless of the bonafide nature of you relationship. You assumed that path to circumvent immigration procedures. And for the umpteenth time, that would be visa fraud if you misrepresented facts or lied BUT preconceived intent alone can not be used to adjudicate a denial in a case. Take it or leave it. That is the truth!

BS. Now you try to lie. You don't know me or my family situation when the visa was applied for and when we arrived. That number 3 is not a fact, just a BS statement. I had no plans to ever return to the US to live. We lived together for 3 years in Saipan where we could have applied for AOS at any time, but we didn't. Why? No plans to live in the US.

Just quit grasping at straws and admit openly what you are saying between the lines here! that people need to be careful about intent hehehe

[Boiler 45,486]

You could not AOS in Saipan.

[mrjack 9]

You could not AOS in Saipan.

I guess we can disregard everything you have posted on here since you came right out and said that.

In the 1970s, the people of the The CNMI voted to become a territory of the US. The last part of the Covenant was implemented in 1986 whereby CNMI citizens were granted US citizenship. Up until 2009, all immigration was handled locally on islands, but the covenant allowed for spouses of US citizens to apply for AOS on the island and residence of permanent residents on the island counted for citizenship purposes. The AOS interview was held on nearby Guam.

In November of 2009, the US government took over immigration in CNMI but existing CNMI entry permits were valid for 2 years longer until November 2011. There is a now an application support center on Saipan that handles interviews on Saipan.

My wife held an immediate relative CNMI entry permit and was eligible for AOS in Saipan. the CNMI is the one place in the us where Chinese and Russian tourists can enter without a visa due to special USCIS parole.

Now, you have been schooled. I suggest that you think before spouting BS.

[Teddy B 17,252]

What difference does it make whether or not you were able to file for AOS in Saipan? The fact remains that you didn't. Your not filing for AOS in Saipan means nothing in regards to what your wife's intent was when entering the US. I'm not sure why you're so intent in arguing with people, your wife was not denied her AOS due to intent, which is what we've been saying all along. Something in your case pointed the I/O down that line of questioning.

[Boiler 45,486]

I must have been asleep in Geography when we did Saipan, I was wrong.

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

I guess we can disregard everything you have posted on here since you came right out and said that.

In the 1970s, the people of the The CNMI voted to become a territory of the US. The last part of the Covenant was implemented in 1986 whereby CNMI citizens were granted US citizenship. Up until 2009, all immigration was handled locally on islands, but the covenant allowed for spouses of US citizens to apply for AOS on the island and residence of permanent residents on the island counted for citizenship purposes. The AOS interview was held on nearby Guam.

In November of 2009, the US government took over immigration in CNMI but existing CNMI entry permits were valid for 2 years longer until November 2011. There is a now an application support center on Saipan that handles interviews on Saipan.

My wife held an immediate relative CNMI entry permit and was eligible for AOS in Saipan. the CNMI is the one place in the us where Chinese and Russian tourists can enter without a visa due to special USCIS parole.

Now, you have been schooled. I suggest that you think before spouting BS.

Interesting. I like learning new things. Thanks for the 'schooling'.

[mrjack 9]

What difference does it make whether or not you were able to file for AOS in Saipan? The fact remains that you didn't. Your not filing for AOS in Saipan means nothing in regards to what your wife's intent was when entering the US. I'm not sure why you're so intent in arguing with people, your wife was not denied her AOS due to intent, which is what we've been saying all along. Something in your case pointed the I/O down that line of questioning.

Funny now people are saying what I have been saying and are now saying I'm saying something else hahaha intent is important in an interview, plain and simple. Now that we are all in agreement lets all sing kumbaya

[MaleAlpha 314]

Interesting thread. Thanks for putting this up since it gives a lot of clarity to the subject. It has been thrown at almost everyone adjusting status within the US without any basis or proof in VJ. Hopefully everyone read about it.

[ManCharsey 254]

True MaleAlpha. It was disconcerting to see it being thrown at everyone anytime they talked about adjusting status within the US but people were failing to realize that, as much as thinking about it whilst one was OUTSIDE the US would fall within preconceived intent to marry and adjust status and thereby constitute visa fraud, once the applicant was already INSIDE the US, USCIS did not really bother about that and even though it might come up in an interview, it could NOT be used as a basis to deny an application (and this is stated within their operations manual which are in the form of links in the original post). An IO would probably use it as a basis to ward into more deeper areas within an applicants marriage to determine if it is a sham or fake marriage, this could then be defined under the Visa Fraud clause and lead to a denial but NEVER the sole reason of having preconceived intent to marry and adjust status. And so far no one has still been able to prove that it was ever used to deny an application. People who spoke in the affirmative of the subject, always indicated it was brought up in an interview but regardless, they still got their applications approved.