Fiance entering on tourist visa, then marrying...?

[Boiler 45,519]

Ok now you all have caused me to have another curiosity.....

"Paroled" and "Admitted" are two separate things? Can you share the difference?

And then.....in a situation such as ours, where AOS is protracted because of the FBI namecheck not being complete.......would it be wise for my husband NOT to travel on Advance Parole?

You could probably write a book on it, somebody probably has, but the effect is the only one that matters. Niagaenola may well be right, I do not know.

Legally you are in a much weaker position if you have problems if you have been paroled in.

The head honcho of the USCIS apparently said something on the lines that he could not understand anybody wishing to put themseleves in that position.

I used AP 3 times with that knowledge, your call.

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

Parolee - A parolee is an alien, appearing to be inadmissible to the inspecting officer, allowed into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or when that alien's entry is determined to be for significant public benefit. Parole does not constitute a formal admission to the United States and confers temporary status only, requiring parolees to leave when the conditions supporting their parole cease to exist. Types of parolees include:

Deferred inspection: authorized at the port upon alien's arrival; may be conferred by an immigration inspector when aliens appear at a port of entry with documentation, but after preliminary examination, some question remains about their admissibility which can best be answered at their point of destination.

Advance parole: authorized at an INS District office in advance of alien's arrival; may be issued to aliens residing in the United States in other than lawful permanent resident status who have an unexpected need to travel and return, and whose conditions of stay do not otherwise allow for readmission to the United States if they depart.

Port-of-entry parole: authorized at the port upon alien's arrival; applies to a wide variety of situations and is used at the discretion of the supervisory immigration inspector, usually to allow short periods of entry. Examples include allowing aliens who could not be issued the necessary documentation within the required time period, or who were otherwise inadmissible, to attend a funeral and permitting the entry of emergency workers, such as fire fighters, to assist with an emergency.

Humanitarian parole: authorized at INS headquarters or overseas District Offices for "urgent humanitarian reasons" specified in the law. It is used in cases of medical emergency and comparable situations.

Significant Public Benefit Parole: authorized at INS headquarters Office of International Affairs for "significant public benefit" specified in the law. It is generally used for aliens who enter to take part in legal proceedings when there is a benefit to the government. These requests must be submitted by a law enforcement agency.

Overseas parole: authorized at an INS District or suboffice while the alien is still overseas; designed to constitute long-term admission to the United States. In recent years, most of the aliens the INS has processed through overseas parole have arrived under special legislation or international migration agreements.

Edited February 22, 2007 by jane2005

[nathmc31 0]

you people never cease to amaze me.

I say one word (paroled) and you all go over the edge. To the lay person being admitted in and paroled in are the same thing. I'm not saying legally they are.

I'm not jumping on the band wagon either, I never said having clear open intent to remain wasn't fraud. What I said was that if no one knows what your thinking then for goodness sake people in REALITY they haven't broken any laws.

Thinking of murdering someone is only a crime if you make it known.

The FACT is that if a person is ADMITTED into the US (there are you all happy), and subsequently marry they can legally AOS no problem. That is the Law. Prove to me otherwise.

There is a difference in common sense and reality. Yes we all know most people know that they are going to stay when entering on VWP and Marry. Reality now; if they come in as a tourist and that is all they are known to come in as, then get married then it is 100% legal, how hard is that to understand.

Just because I say that doesn't mean that I like it!!!!

There is no gray area here, if someone is denied it wont be for intent UNLESS they make that known at the POE or are married before entering.

Let the band wagon go on, if it makes you all happy. Continue in your fantasy land I don't care but don't criticize me for giving factual advice why you all scare people who choose this option.

Edited February 22, 2007 by nathmc31

[Boiler 45,519]

So you can not adjust following entry on a VWP if you are already married?

[meauxna 15]

Vintage meauxna:

meauxna Aug 22 2004, 12:15 pm

Newsgroups: alt.visa.us.marriage-based

From: meauxna <member1851@british_expats.com>

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 20:15:05 +0000

Local: Sun, Aug 22 2004 12:15 pm

Subject: Re: Entering the US with INTENT TO MARRY

> Hi,

> Thanks for everyone who responded to my previous post earlier this week.

> Everyone keeps mentioning that it is illegal to enter the US on any type of Visa (other than K-3 I guess) with the Intent to Marry a US Citizen.

> While it makes a little bit of sense and I can see where it's coming from - WHO SAYS SO? Does anyone actually know where this is mentioned in the immigration law or is it just a belief that people carry with them from post to post?

> Thanks!

> AZ-GUY

az,

It would be good of you to link this post to your post at visajourney, since the posters there have not discussed the legal end of this as much as this NG has.

You are right to be sceptical about how the 'party line' is repeated, as much mis-information does get repeated on discussion groups.

However, I hope you've noticed by the replies to this post that it *has* been discussed, a lot. I hope you noticed the credentials attached to Folinskyinla and read his replies carefully.

The relevant law is partially contained in the INA:http://tinyurl.com/65byy Section 245: http://tinyurl.com/4fnht and may be influenced by interpretations: http://tinyurl.com/6fcxn

The issue of intent, AOS etc has been discussed from a legal and moral point of view many many times. For a review of previous discussions that discuss specific laws and rules, search Udall, intent, POE, INA and maybe paulgani for good measure. Not for the faint of heart!

My .02: If you feel you are going to rely on a specific point of law to defend your AOS, have someone with you who has studied the INA more than you & I have.

Folisnkyinla, from the above thread:

Hi:

First, you "guess" wrong -- a K-3 is already married. In context you meant K-1. Also, it is notionally legal to enter the US with intent to marry a US citizen and then return to your residence abroad.

But in answer to your question -- 8 USC 1101(a)(15). For those giving advice on how to enter as a non-immigrant visitor with intent to get married -- 8 USC 1324(a)(1) is instructive. Toss in 18 USC 2(B) and it gets mighty interesting. As for the intending immigrant, it is quite possible that they cross over in 8 USC 1182(a)(6)© territory.

BTW, don't be confused by the "pre-concieved intent" cases on the exercise of discretion in 8 USC 1255(a) adjustment. Although similar, it is quite different. The "PCI" doctrine still treats the intent as a violation of the law and therefore a negative discretionary factor.

"The answer is easy if you take it logically." Paul Simon.

BTW, I have a habit of collecting what I call "quotes of judicial frustration" -- this is a PARTIAL list which I have not updated in a while:

"...we are in the never-never land of the Immigration and Nationality Act, where plain words do not always mean what they say." Yuen Sang Low

v. Attorney General, 479 F.2nd 820 (9th Cir. 1973)

"We have had occasion to note the striking resemblance between some of the laws we are called upon to interpret and King Minos's labyrinth in ancient Crete. The Tax Laws and the Immigration and Nationality Acts are examples we have cited of Congress's ingenuity in passing statutes certain to accelerate the aging process of judges. In this instance, Congress, pursuant to its virtually unfettered power to exclude or deport natives of other countries, and apparently confident of the aphorism that human skill, properly applied, can resolve any enigma that human inventiveness can create, has enacted a baffling skein of provisions for the I.N.S. and courts to disentangle. The fate of the alien faced with imminent deportation often hinges upon narrow issues of statutory interpretation. The instant petition, which requires us to determine whether the petitioner is ineligible for the discretionary relief afforded by Section 212© of the Act, 8 U.S.C. s 1182©, because he has not accumulated seven years of residence in this country since his admission to permanent resident alien status, is no exception. Emboldened by Thesean courage and fortified by a close examination of the statutory language, we believe that the Board of Immigration appeals erred in denying the petitioner relief on the ground that it did, and remand for consideration on a proper basis." Tim Lok v. INS, 548 F.2nd 37 (2nd Cir. 1977).

"In its brief the INS states "the public, of course, has a right to obtain guidance from the regulations for its dealings with the Service." We devoutly hope the INS and those who draft the regulations and Operations Instructions under which it operates will take this statement to heart.

Whatever guidance the regulations furnish to those cognoscenti familiar with INS procedures, this court, despite many years of legal experience, finds that they yield up meaning only grudgingly and that morsels of comprehension must be pried from mollusks of jargon. There is nothing esoteric about the subject matter. The regulations concern simple matters of great concern to human beings, most of them of limited education. They should be so written as to be comprehensible by intelligent laymen and unspecialized lawyers without the aid of both lexicon and inner-circle guide." Kwon v. INS, 646 F.2nd 909 (5th Cir. 1981)

"It would seem that should be a simple issue with a clear answer, but this is immigration law where the issues are seldom simple and the answers are far from clear." Alanis-Bustamante v. Reno 201 F.34d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000)

--

Certified Specialist

Immigration & Nat. Law

Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization

(my bolding)

http://tinyurl.com/38bd5w

That's two times I've given you the search terms--for those of you not yet satisfied with an answer from this thread (and you should NOT be yet satisfied!) do your own research if you want to learn. There isn't a person on this board whose word I would take at face value (no offence intended) and I hope you all feel the same.

I hope you won't take a simple answer that, if it were all so obvious, we could all benefit from and there would be no need for this group.

Who's the rube?

[Dr_LHA 3]

Forget it. One rule for married people and one rule for single I guess.

Edited February 22, 2007 by dr_lha

[ceriserose 1]

you people never cease to amaze me.

I say one word (paroled) and you all go over the edge.

I love new people.

This is actually a very civil and informative discussion. Nothing like what can occur. And has.

Meauxna, you are a good vintage.

[rebeccajo 14]

Ok now you all have caused me to have another curiosity.....

"Paroled" and "Admitted" are two separate things? Can you share the difference?

And then.....in a situation such as ours, where AOS is protracted because of the FBI namecheck not being complete.......would it be wise for my husband NOT to travel on Advance Parole?

Kez summed it up well; that is how I read it described as well.

Some people would say that it is wise for your husband to not leave--it IS one more layer of complication. Folinskyinla has written a lot about it if you want to search out his thoughts. He's never really advised someone in Wes' type of situation out in public (well, he doesn't advise anyway.. )

I've been meaning to PM you, but could post it here too. Thought you'd be interested in this: Expedited FBI Name Check (don't get TOO excited by the title! lol)

Well Kez, Mo, Jane, Boiler and all - thanks for that little revelation. I've always wondered if it would be wise for us to travel. There was just some little bug about it that bothered me but I had never bothered to research it.

I love how if you READ you can learn something new each day. Thanks again to you all.

And Mo...thanks for the link. I've already patched it to the FBI namecheck thread.

[Boiler 45,519]

Forget it. One rule for married people and one rule for single I guess.

We are still waiting for the font of knowledge to pronounce.

I would agree with Meauxna, double check everything, which smells in anyway odd, even advice from a Lawyer. It is your bottom on the line, not theirs.

And always bear in mind it is not a precise science.

But that's life anyway.

Awesome research by Meauxna btw, mega kudos

[John & Annie 0]

While doing some research i discovered this:

(E) False Testimony . An individual who gives false testimony during the statutory period for the purpose of obtaining any benefit under the Act is precluded from establishing good moral character. See section 101(f)(6) of the Act and 8 CFR 316.10(B)(2)(vi) . The most common occurrence of false testimony is failure to disclose a criminal or other adverse record, but false testimony can occur in any area. False testimony may relate to facts about lawful admission, absences, residence, marital status or infidelity, employment, organizational membership, tax filing information, or any of the multitudes of facts that are developed during a naturalization interview. False testimony, in any area, occurs when the individual deliberately intends to deceive the governm ent while under oath in order to obtain citizenship, regardless of whether the information provided in the false testimony was material, in the sense that if given truthfully it would have made the applicant ineligible for naturalization. For example, an applicant may conceal an arrest that occurred outside or within the statutory period, believing that the disclosure of the arrest would bar his or her naturalization, even though the arrest was minor in nature and would not have an adverse effect upon his o r her eligibility. The applicant’s false testimony, in itself, denotes a lack of good moral character and renders the applicant ineligible for naturalization on the present application and on any future naturalization application until the false testimony date is outside of the statutory period.

There are three elements to false testimony that must exist for a naturalization application to be denied on false testimony grounds. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Kungys v. United States , 485 U.S. 759, 780-81 (1988) [ Appendix 74-6 ], the elements of false testimony are:

• Oral statements. “Testimony” for the purposes of section 101(f)(6) of the Act must be oral. False statements in an application, whether or not under oath, do not constitute “testimony”. Falsified documents do not constitute “testimony”. Further, the oral statement must be an affirmative misrepresentation. The Kungys decision makes it clear that there has been no false testimony if facts are merely concealed. Thus, incomplete but otherwise truthful answers will not rise to the level of false testimony. Concealment of the existence of a conviction is not false testimony. Fo r example, an individual has two convictions in the statutory period: one DUI conviction and one conviction for Assault and Battery. In response to the “arrest” question, the applicant testifies, “Yes, I was arrested for DUI and given one year probation.” That testimony is not false. It does conceal the existence of the other conviction, but is not an affirmative misrepresentation and is not, therefore, false testimony. To solve this problem, ALWAYS ask a follow-up question after a known concealment, such a s, “Are there any other arrests?” Assuming the applicant answers “no”, he has now provided false testimony.

• Under Oath . The oral statement must be made under oath in order to constitute false testimony. Oral statements to officers that are not under oath do not constitute false testimony.

• With Subjective Intent to obtain an immigration benefit . An individual must be providing the false testimony in order to obtain an immigration benefit. False testimony provided for any other reason does not preclude an individual from establishing good moral character. Subjective intent is often the most difficult aspect of sustaining a false testimony denial. As the government acknowledges in Kungys v. the United States :

“It is only dishonesty accompanied by this precise intent that Congress found morally unacceptable. Willful misrepresentations made for other reasons, such as embarrassment, fear, or a desire for privacy, were not deemed sufficiently culpable to brand the applicant as someone who lacks good moral character.”

I thought it very interesting. Being that this is how they evaluate you for naturalization.

[meauxna 15]

Forget it. One rule for married people and one rule for single I guess.

We are still waiting for the font of knowledge to pronounce.

I would agree with Meauxna, double check everything, which smells in anyway odd, even advice from a Lawyer. It is your bottom on the line, not theirs.

And always bear in mind it is not a precise science.

But that's life anyway.

Awesome research by Meauxna btw, mega kudos

Oh well, ha ha.. easy if you use the two magic words.. lol.

psst.. thought it was 'bot bot' on the line?? Have I been mistranslating?! heheheh

[Boiler 45,519]

Oh well, ha ha.. easy if you use the two magic words.. lol.

psst.. thought it was 'bot bot' on the line?? Have I been mistranslating?! heheheh

Still chortle when I hear fanny.....

Lets see, backside, derrier would also work.