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

[shamgod 0]

You guys can talk all you want about "intent" and the law but fact is, lots of people enter the US on Tourist Visas, proceed to marry a USC and then do the AOS.

Also I never read any place that the applicant has the burden to overcome a presumption to immigrate. I HAVE read that Tourist Visa applicants have such an obligation, but nothing I've read makes such stipulations when attempting to Adjust Status.

Edited February 18, 2007 by shamgod

[KarenCee 3]

You guys can talk all you want about "intent" and the law but fact is, lots of people enter the US on Tourist Visas, proceed to marry a USC and then do the AOS.

Also I never read any place that the applicant has the burden to overcome a presumption to immigrate. I HAVE read that Tourist Visa applicants have such an obligation, but nothing I've read makes such stipulations when attempting to Adjust Status.

Ah yes...many do and that's a fact and many are successful. However, the burden IS on you if the CO doesn't buy it. So, put yourself in that position. You are sitting across from a CO. He or she asks you to prove that you had NO intentions of immigration when you entered on a Tourist Visa and got married. What WILL you do? The CO has the right to ask for proof. Are you going to fail to provide such proof?

ETA: It helps to have a time line in your sig or where it says "My Timeline"

Edited February 18, 2007 by KarenCee

[shamgod 0]

So, put yourself in that position. You are sitting across from a CO. He or she asks you to prove that you had NO intentions of immigration when you entered on a Tourist Visa and got married. What WILL you do? The CO has the right to ask for proof. Are you going to fail to provide such proof?

That's a fair question. I'm not sure how a person would ever prove one way or the other what their intention was at the port of entry. Were I from the USCIS I'd be suspicious of someone who marred 24 hours after entering the States. On the other hand, It's the old addage about "Proving a negative". It's extremely difficult to prove that you Were NOT thinking a particular thought--the intent to immigrate. You could say you only brought one overnight bag--but you'd never be able to prove that. You could say I'd never met my spouse, again, how to prove?

[Kez/JWolf 6]

They (USCIS) dont have to prove anything it is up to the person who entered on the VWP/Tourist visa to prove they did not have intent....

Kez

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

If they are asked.....................

[shamgod 0]

They (USCIS) dont have to prove anything it is up to the person who entered on the VWP/Tourist visa to prove they did not have intent....

Kez

No one is saying the USCIS has such an obligation and likewise, there's nothing written any where I know of that a prospective AOS applicant has to overcome any presumption to immigrate in the aforementioned scenario.

[meauxna 15]

You can circle around the risk/benefit as much as you like, the point is, the act itself (entry as a non-immigrant with the intent to imigrate on that entry) is illegal.

So is jaywalking. I am willing to take the risk of jaywalking most places because the risk (of punishment) is low, and even if caught, the stakes are low.

I am not willing to take that risk with US immigration. The stakes for me were too high, not just of a failed adjustment, but knowing the questions that come down the road at naturalization, and knowing that PR status, or even citizenship, can be revoked if material misrepresentations were made. I didn't want to be looking over my shoulder.

The guidelines of this community are that we do not promote illegal activities, especially in regard to immigration. If someone wants to do their research, draw their conclusions and make their own decision, that is for the individual couple to decide. They should have/get all the information to make that decision.

[KarenCee 3]

They (USCIS) dont have to prove anything it is up to the person who entered on the VWP/Tourist visa to prove they did not have intent....

Kez

No one is saying the USCIS has such an obligation and likewise, there's nothing written any where I know of that a prospective AOS applicant has to overcome any presumption to immigrate in the aforementioned scenario.

IF THEY ARE ASKED....that is the operative phrase here. THEN it IS on you to prove there was no intent.

[shamgod 0]

Entering the US on a Visitor's Visa, marrying, then deciding to stay is fully within the law.

Marrying within the US in no way shows an intent to immigrate. It shows an intent to marry. People do ALL THE TIME. So no encouragement to break laws is encouraged here.

There is very little the USCIS does that is not subject to arbitrary and discretionary decisions on the part of the US Government.

[LaL 418]

Entering the US on a Visitor's Visa, marrying, then deciding to stay is fully within the law.

Marrying within the US in no way shows an intent to immigrate. It shows an intent to marry. People do ALL THE TIME. So no encouragement to break laws is encouraged here.

There is very little the USCIS does that is not subject to arbitrary and discretionary decisions on the part of the US Government.

the word THEN bolded above the the most important part of your statement above. Without the emphasis, the statement could be misleading. you can marry, you can stay, but you cannot enter with the intent to marry AND stay.

[KarenCee 3]

Entering the US on a Visitor's Visa, marrying, then deciding to stay is fully within the law.

Marrying within the US in no way shows an intent to immigrate. It shows an intent to marry. People do ALL THE TIME. So no encouragement to break laws is encouraged here.

There is very little the USCIS does that is not subject to arbitrary and discretionary decisions on the part of the US Government.

...and your purpose for all this discussion is.....?

[nathmc31 0]

Entering the US on a Visitor's Visa, marrying, then deciding to stay is fully within the law.

Marrying within the US in no way shows an intent to immigrate. It shows an intent to marry. People do ALL THE TIME. So no encouragement to break laws is encouraged here.

There is very little the USCIS does that is not subject to arbitrary and discretionary decisions on the part of the US Government.

I agree completely. Look we can argue all day about this touchy topic, the reality is that it IS NOT ILLEGAL for an Immediate relative to enter on a VWP and AOS. Were are not just talking about spouse's, it is LEGAL for parents and children under 21. When you enter on the VWP the POE must be satisfied that you do not have the intent to immigrate, so if they let you into the US you have satisfied to USCIS that your intent was not to immigrate. Remember reality is the key word.

For all of you who had to file waivers for your K1 like I did you remember reading the law about ineligibilities, and how most of us were in fact ELIGIBLE, however the USCIS didn't care about what the law said and still wanted a waiver submitted anyway, well entering on the VWP and AOS is the same situation just because in black and white the law says that it is illegal to AOS after entering on VWP, because of INTENT, it contradicts it self by saying all IMMEDIATE RELATIVES can AOS after entering on VWP.

So we are all disagreeing on a subject which is here nor there. No one likes knowing that some people do it but that is there choice and a totally legal choice.

[chelsea.and.john 0]

woooooooooooooweeeeeeeeeeeeee

*crosseyed*

[Boiler 45,519]

Is this all it takes to generate 58 posts?

The OP made one and disappeared.

[Aussielad 37]

You can circle around the risk/benefit as much as you like, the point is, the act itself (entry as a non-immigrant with the intent to imigrate on that entry) is illegal.

So is jaywalking. I am willing to take the risk of jaywalking most places because the risk (of punishment) is low, and even if caught, the stakes are low.

I am not willing to take that risk with US immigration. The stakes for me were too high, not just of a failed adjustment, but knowing the questions that come down the road at naturalization, and knowing that PR status, or even citizenship, can be revoked if material misrepresentations were made. I didn't want to be looking over my shoulder.

The guidelines of this community are that we do not promote illegal activities, especially in regard to immigration. If someone wants to do their research, draw their conclusions and make their own decision, that is for the individual couple to decide. They should have/get all the information to make that decision.

Actually....to have citzenship revoked is extremly hard, you have to have done something *really* wrong to get your citizenship taken away....once a citizen, always a citizen unless something SERIOUS has happened,...not something such as entering on the VWP and getting married and adjusting status.