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

[Kez/JWolf 6]

When I went to ask about bring my parents over at my local USCIS office I was told once I am a Citizen have them come over on the VWP when they are ready and then file I-130 and AOS for them both...

Kez

[meauxna 15]

I've been looking into this, and must admit am having a hard time finding where in law it says that you can be denied AOS for having immigration intent. In fact there is a specific part of the INA where it says that the rule that you cannot adjust status if you arrive on a Visa Waiver does not apply to immediate relatives.

I'm not convinced like nathmc31 is, but I'd like to see a cogent argument as to why he is wrong, rather than just "convential wisdom".

ahhhhhh. the topic has come full circle in exactly (checking watch) 4 years and 362 days.

(you might even find, if you keep looking, that if immigrant intent is the ONLY bar to adjustment they still can't use it to deny)

"Material misrepresentation" is an important phrase in the discussion (yes nathan, it really DOES matter what you say at the POE) and the advising of others in how to make that "clean entry" (hey, there is another good search phrase for you) are the problems.

I said before: if someone wants to do the research, understand what they are doing and can stomach knowing they've done something NQR, then the decision is up to them. I myself would never tell someone to plan to immigrate this way, and I'm not part of any online communities that do so either.

Oh yeah, dr_lha, search in the Usenet group alt.visa.us.marriage-based -- you can find it at google.com/groups Like I say, the conversation has been going on for a spell. You can also search on "blood money" or "10 foot pole" (in its variations) for lots of opinions and facts on the topic.

[John & Annie 0]

I've been looking into this, and must admit am having a hard time finding where in law it says that you can be denied AOS for having immigration intent. In fact there is a specific part of the INA where it says that the rule that you cannot adjust status if you arrive on a Visa Waiver does not apply to immediate relatives.

I'm not convinced like nathmc31 is, but I'd like to see a cogent argument as to why he is wrong, rather than just "convential wisdom".

I do not believe that is the debate. I believe the issue is that when at the POE, if you lie to the officer, you jeopardize your immigration process. CBP is very specific about the VWP. this is from the CBP website

A nonimmigrant is a foreign national seeking to enter the United States (U.S.) temporarily for a specific purpose. Nonimmigrants enter the U.S. for a temporary period of time, and once in the U.S. are restricted to the activity or reason for which their visa was issued. They may have more than one type of nonimmigrant visa but are admitted in only one status.

General requirements for foreign nationals seeking temporary admission include, but are not limited to, the following:

* The purpose of the visit must be temporary;

* The foreign national must agree to depart at the end of his/her authorized stay or extension;

* The foreign national must be in possession of a valid passport;

* A foreign residence must be maintained by the foreign national, in most instances;

* The foreign national may be required to show proof of financial support;

* The foreign national must be admissable or have obtained a waiver for any ground of inadmissability;

* The foreign national must abide by the terms and conditions of admission.

Not saying that these have not been forgiven in the past, but that there is the chance that by violating these terms, you could find yourself at the short end of a AOS denial. Which, if you enter in the VWP, you automatically waive your right to dispute.

[KarenCee 3]

Just a question...curiosity really...how does one enter on the VWP as an Immdediate Relative if you aren't married yet?

Check my posts, your immediate relatives include mum and dad and children under 21, not just spouse. Gee you are a real winner hey.

If you have anything further to say to me, do so in private.

Edited February 21, 2007 by KarenCee

[nathmc31 0]

When I went to ask about bring my parents over at my local USCIS office I was told once I am a Citizen have them come over on the VWP when they are ready and then file I-130 and AOS for them both...

Kez

And that is exactly what I have been saying all along, it is legal for immediate relitives to AOS after entering on the VWP. That includes people who enter then marry.

Edited February 21, 2007 by nathmc31

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

I love that term "spur of the moment". The person who first coined it as a phrase to show lack of immigrant intent could be making millions from the royalties.

[rebeccajo 14]

Nath, you just don't get it, do you?

You have an opinion. Good for you. Yay and all that jazz.

Other people have opinions too. In fact, it's refreshing to have more than one opinion. I find one opinion to be rather dull, boring and - well - narrow minded.

What you DON'T GET is that visajourney is an immigration community that advocates doing things within the boundaries of the law. AOS'ing from the VWP is not against the law - as you so vehemenently defend. But beyond anecdotal experience, it pushes the envelope as to what we as laypeople should be advising to our fellow forum-dwellers.

In other words - we aren't lawyers. It's a fun little game (moderately educational even) to rattle through the CFR and other regs looking things up. But law is more than what's written in books, or what we can gather from the experiences of members of this community.

You need to ratchet it down a notch or two. Ain't nobody always right.

[Boiler 45,537]

When I went to ask about bring my parents over at my local USCIS office I was told once I am a Citizen have them come over on the VWP when they are ready and then file I-130 and AOS for them both...

Kez

And that is exactly what I have been saying all along, it is legal for immediate relitives to AOS after entering on the VWP. That includes people who enter then marry.

You have no right or expectation to rely on anything Government employees tell you, the Supreme Court said so.

But you can live in your on world, I only have a problem when you mislead others.

Repeatidly.

Despite being advised otherwise.

[rebeccajo 14]

I love that term "spur of the moment". The person who first coined it as a phrase to show lack of immigrant intent could be making millions from the royalties.

My now-husband used to say to me that the way he wanted to get married to me was to roll over in the bed one morning, pull me over to him, and say 'hey, let's get married today'.

And that immigration sure spoiled his fantasy.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I do not believe that is the debate. I believe the issue is that when at the POE, if you lie to the officer, you jeopardize your immigration process. CBP is very specific about the VWP. this is from the CBP website

I've entered the USA on VWP a few times, and never once was I asked any probing questions about my visit. I believe it would be possible to get past CBP with immigration intent, and not lie to a CBP officier. A good officer would catch you, but honestly when 500 people show up on a Jumbo from the UK, they don't usually care about their reasons for visiting.

The point I was trying to make, is that everyone on here says: Yes you can come in to the USA on VWP, but if you intended to remain you're going to get into trouble with USCIS. This is the conventional wisdom here. Can someone quote me anything in the legal statutes that actually state that USCIS officers can use the reason of "intent" on a VWP as denial of AOS, or any cases where this has happened to anyone?

Quoting visa statutes don't help because as the INA states, almost all visa violations are forgiven by being married to a USC, including entering on VWP.

[rebeccajo 14]

Doc, it was mentioned in another thread in the last day or two that signing the I94 itself, which has the wording 'nonimmigrant' on it, can be the one big trip-up......

Damned if I know where the thread is....

Also, when you refer to 'visa violations' - remember - when traveling on the VWP, there is no Visa - hence the name Visa Waiver Program.......

Edited February 21, 2007 by rebeccajo

[lisaf 0]

I've entered the USA on VWP a few times, and never once was I asked any probing questions about my visit. I believe it would be possible to get past CBP with immigration intent, and not lie to a CBP officier. A good officer would catch you, but honestly when 500 people show up on a Jumbo from the UK, they don't usually care about their reasons for visiting.

The point I was trying to make, is that everyone on here says: Yes you can come in to the USA on VWP, but if you intended to remain you're going to get into trouble with USCIS. This is the conventional wisdom here. Can someone quote me anything in the legal statutes that actually state that USCIS officers can use the reason of "intent" on a VWP as denial of AOS, or any cases where this has happened to anyone?

Quoting visa statutes don't help because as the INA states, almost all visa violations are forgiven by being married to a USC, including entering on VWP.

Food for thought,

I did four VWP trips over 2 years for 90 days at a time... The first time was easy, was travelling with an american gf on the holiday where I met my now husband. I came back, easy again....the third time , a bit more in depth and the fourth, well I was taken to the room and grilled.

Now, I had my own business which was why I could travel as much as I wanted and spare the time, but that really freaked them out every time. My " ties " weren't that strong as I was not living in my home country anyway. As it was xmas eve, he said he'd let me in this last time, but I shouldn't come back again for at least a year. And, that if I did there would be a record of my " interview" I told him we were filing for K1, he said fine , you'll be welcome then but dont come back without it!

Had I said to heck with it, stayed and married etc. then tried AOS would the record of his " notes" appeared at any of the process???? My point is about the "intent to immigrate", no-one can know what an officer at some point tapped in to that little screen...( assuming there had been previous visits to the states) Could it be used??? In my hypothetical scenario I would have been done for!

[Dr_LHA 3]

Doc, it was mentioned in another thread in the last day or two that signing the I94 itself, which has the wording 'nonimmigrant' on it, can be the one big trip-up......

True, but what I'm not sure about is are there actually any consequences of it. People here always say that you can't do AOS if you have immigration intent from VWP, but the INA simply states that you can only do AOS from a VWP if you're an immediate relative.

My point in asking this is not to encourage people to do this BTW, I'm hoping someone can show me the legal reason that means people can't abuse the visa system in this way.

[nathmc31 0]

Nath, you just don't get it, do you?

You have an opinion. Good for you. Yay and all that jazz.

Other people have opinions too. In fact, it's refreshing to have more than one opinion. I find one opinion to be rather dull, boring and - well - narrow minded.

What you DON'T GET is that visajourney is an immigration community that advocates doing things within the boundaries of the law. AOS'ing from the VWP is not against the law - as you so vehemenently defend. But beyond anecdotal experience, it pushes the envelope as to what we as laypeople should be advising to our fellow forum-dwellers.

In other words - we aren't lawyers. It's a fun little game (moderately educational even) to rattle through the CFR and other regs looking things up. But law is more than what's written in books, or what we can gather from the experiences of members of this community.

You need to ratchet it down a notch or two. Ain't nobody always right.

Mate belive me I do get it..... I respect that this forum is for everyone to voice their opinions, but all I have heared by a number of posters is that it is ILLEGAL. They are not saying that it is their opinion they a saying that I am wrong and they are right. Im not giving my opinion I am quoteing immigration law as it is writen in black and white. Weather a CO takes that into consideration is their porocotive. Below I will quote the law and where it is covered.

[nathmc31 0]

I have found in the immigration and Nationality act the LAW for what have been saying all along.

here is the section;

© 1/ Other than an alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner, 1a/ subsection (a) shall not be applicable to (1) an alien crewman; (2) 1/ subject to subsection (k), an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 201(b) or a special immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(H) , (I) , (J) , or (K) ) who hereafter continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an application for adjustment of status or who is in unlawful immigration status on the date of filing the application for adjustment of status or who has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States; (3) any alien admitted in transit without visa under section 212(d)(4)© ; (4) an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 201(B) ) who was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor without a visa under section 212(l) or section 217 ; (5) an alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(S) ; (6) an alien who is deportable under section 237(a)(4)(B) ; 1a/ (7) 2/ any alien who seeks adjustment of status to that of an immigrant under section 203(B) and is not in a lawful nonimmigrant status; or (8) any alien who was employed while the alien was an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 274A(h)(3) , or who has otherwise violated the terms of a nonimmigrant visa.

Here is the link to the act

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?...29f8b6ea9f7c64d

Ok this is not my opinion this is the law black and white. I know that not everyone on this board has an attitude but there are some that think they know it all and get on the band wagon.