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

[Dr_LHA 3]

Unless you're an immigration lawyer, I wouldn't go around saying that the law is "black and white". Immigration law is among the most complex, simply quoting a paragraph and saying that is the whole story is showing naivety, I'm afraid.

[Killer_Clown_2009 0]

I did see one report (forget where - but not on VJ) of one person who was asked about their immigration intent during their AOS interview.

They were then asked to submit items to support their claim of non immigration intent. They were able to provide certain items ( a mortgage and bills from their house in another country) that satisfied USCIS.

I can look for the link to it and post it if I can find it.

Edited February 21, 2007 by jane2005

[nathmc31 0]

Unless you're an immigration lawyer, I wouldn't go around saying that the law is "black and white". Immigration law is among the most complex, simply quoting a paragraph and saying that is the whole story is showing naivety, I'm afraid.

I understand that there is a gray area within law, I was a police officer in NSW Australia. All I am saying is that if it was to go before a immigration judge the black and white within the law and it is clearly written, would be what the judge would ultimately rule on. As most people agree, this avenue 9 out of 10 times wouldn't even be an issue.

[zyggy 9]

Unless you're an immigration lawyer, I wouldn't go around saying that the law is "black and white". Immigration law is among the most complex, simply quoting a paragraph and saying that is the whole story is showing naivety, I'm afraid.

I understand that there is a gray area within law, I was a police officer in NSW Australia. All I am saying is that if it was to go before a immigration judge the black and white within the law and it is clearly written, would be what the judge would ultimately rule on. As most people agree, this avenue 9 out of 10 times wouldn't even be an issue.

This is not Australian law.. this is US law and what is written is often just a guide because there could be other areas of the same law that counteracts what the other says... Immigration law is famous for having the INA state one thing in one location.. and another thing in another location and trying to navigate between the two... this is due to the fact that there hasn't been a new immigration law since the 1950's. What you see is a patchwork of law after law after law after law that is stitched together to make this hideous beast... most of the time one patch contradicst another patch becuase Congress didn't actually read any of the other patches or think about how this most recent patch would affect the other patches before they passed the next patch...

There are lots of legal cases where things are not so black and white... there is a reason why immigration law is considered the second most complex law next to patent law... because there are may places where the law seems to contradict itself or remain silent on many issues.

The truth of the matter is that you are trying to give people reassurances where you do not know all of the fact or reasons behind it... you are a very dangerous person and a threat to this community... there is nothing worse that someone who doesn't know all the fact to pick out portions of the argument that favor their position and try to pass it off as proof that their position is iron clad... you are walking on quicksand...

I suggest that you look up the portions of the INA that deal with misrepresentation and admission to the US... that will give you a real reason where the grounds lie... then I suggest that you start to look up cases from the Federal Appeals Circuit, and Board of Immigration Appeals. In all those sources will you find out what the law in practice is... and only then you will get a taste...

This is why attorneys are very useful and necessary... the general position on this fourn has been stated as much due to many, many attorneys who have chimed in... this is one of the gray areas of the law and the guidance of a experienced attorney who has delat with these types of cases is required in order to navigate the inherent risks involved with this type of adjustment. This is not black and white... there is a risk, albeit rather small, that an adjustment case could go south due to an immigrant intent factor.. .it has happened in the past and it will happen in the future... Even though the risk is small,it carries with it the prospect of a rather high penalty... removal from the US... or a rather lengthly and costly legal process to be able to stay...

Some people are fine with the risk... others are not... everyone has their own risk tolerance...

All we should do is alert people on the situations, the risks involved in each, tell them to seek legal advice to see where their own situation fits between the extremes and allow them to make their own decision...

To go off and state that just because one paragraph of the INA states such and such which happens to support your position without the knowledge of the other 300 pages of the INA is extremely irresponsible and is a great disservice to those in the community who wants to find out more information... and we as a community has a responsibility to stop any misinformation or errant position that happnes to come across here...

Edited February 21, 2007 by zyggy

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Very well put zyggy.... I always point out to people that there are risks of doing AOS from VWP/Tourist visa even when it was a spur of the moment marriage...

People should always get help from a good immigration lawyer who has expirence in dealing with AOS from a VWP/tourist visa... everones situations are diffrent and nobody can give a blanket statement that its ok to take this route.. it might be ok for one couple and not for another..

Kez

[John & Annie 0]

That was very well put.

I like to think of it this way. I know a guy (i actually do know him) who is spending 6 years in prison for telemarketing. He was selling investments, one day he showed up and a whole bunch of law enforcement agencies were there. As it turns out, they were not legal. He had documents from his employers that everything was legal.

As it turns out, Janet Reno had a bug bear about telemarketers and had never successfully prosecuted one and this was her chance.

So now, if your telemarketer, make sure what your are doing is legal.

What I am trying to say and have said in previous posts. What other have stated throughout this thread. Is that while this may or may not be forgivable, the term used here is forgivable. That would imply that something was done wrong to forgive.

I know for me, I would no be so bold as to go on a forum and tell everyone that i am planning on doing this as the OP did. In all fairness they were asking advice on if this was a good route to go.

I think we have properly answered the OP's question. That while this may be forgivable and very difficult for USCIS to prove, misrepresenting yourself at a Border Crossing or POE could lead to issues down the line.

On a personal note, knowing what I know now, I would not be comfortable doing this.

[Caladan 19]

Plus, there's the rest of the pragmatics to consider; if your case is simple, you can file for a K-1 or a K-3 without a lawyer just by educating yourself. If you're just going to enter on the VWP and get married and adjust, you've pretty much made it necessary to hire an attorney.

And it is nice to have many of the possible tripwires sorted out ahead of time: previous divorce certificates, criminal record stuff (how many people discover only when they apply for a K-1 that they have a CIMT though they've travelled many times to the U.S. previously?), birth certificates, getting visas for the kids, &c.

[nathmc31 0]

Unless you're an immigration lawyer, I wouldn't go around saying that the law is "black and white". Immigration law is among the most complex, simply quoting a paragraph and saying that is the whole story is showing naivety, I'm afraid.

I understand that there is a gray area within law, I was a police officer in NSW Australia. All I am saying is that if it was to go before a immigration judge the black and white within the law and it is clearly written, would be what the judge would ultimately rule on. As most people agree, this avenue 9 out of 10 times wouldn't even be an issue.

This is not Australian law.. this is US law and what is written is often just a guide because there could be other areas of the same law that counteracts what the other says... Immigration law is famous for having the INA state one thing in one location.. and another thing in another location and trying to navigate between the two... this is due to the fact that there hasn't been a new immigration law since the 1950's. What you see is a patchwork of law after law after law after law that is stitched together to make this hideous beast... most of the time one patch contradicst another patch becuase Congress didn't actually read any of the other patches or think about how this most recent patch would affect the other patches before they passed the next patch...

There are lots of legal cases where things are not so black and white... there is a reason why immigration law is considered the second most complex law next to patent law... because there are may places where the law seems to contradict itself or remain silent on many issues.

The truth of the matter is that you are trying to give people reassurances where you do not know all of the fact or reasons behind it... you are a very dangerous person and a threat to this community... there is nothing worse that someone who doesn't know all the fact to pick out portions of the argument that favor their position and try to pass it off as proof that their position is iron clad... you are walking on quicksand...

I suggest that you look up the portions of the INA that deal with misrepresentation and admission to the US... that will give you a real reason where the grounds lie... then I suggest that you start to look up cases from the Federal Appeals Circuit, and Board of Immigration Appeals. In all those sources will you find out what the law in practice is... and only then you will get a taste...

This is why attorneys are very useful and necessary... the general position on this fourn has been stated as much due to many, many attorneys who have chimed in... this is one of the gray areas of the law and the guidance of a experienced attorney who has delat with these types of cases is required in order to navigate the inherent risks involved with this type of adjustment. This is not black and white... there is a risk, albeit rather small, that an adjustment case could go south due to an immigrant intent factor.. .it has happened in the past and it will happen in the future... Even though the risk is small,it carries with it the prospect of a rather high penalty... removal from the US... or a rather lengthly and costly legal process to be able to stay...

Some people are fine with the risk... others are not... everyone has their own risk tolerance...

All we should do is alert people on the situations, the risks involved in each, tell them to seek legal advice to see where their own situation fits between the extremes and allow them to make their own decision...

To go off and state that just because one paragraph of the INA states such and such which happens to support your position without the knowledge of the other 300 pages of the INA is extremely irresponsible and is a great disservice to those in the community who wants to find out more information... and we as a community has a responsibility to stop any misinformation or errant position that happnes to come across here...

you are writing a load of BS mate. You show me anywhere in any US statute which contradicts what I have taken from the Immigration and Naturalization act. If you cant put up the you need to stop going on to save face. The fact is that this is the law which isn't contradicted anywhere in US LAW. If you don't believe me PROVE IT.

Edited February 21, 2007 by nathmc31

[nathmc31 0]

I have never once said, because the law states that it is ok, that it is ok for everyone's situation what I have said is that the law states it in black and white that is black ink and white paper. I defiantly know that there is a gray area in law, I obviously know that the law is different in the US as it is in Australia however law is how you interpret it.

Finaly don't you think what you are saying is doing a dissevers to those seeking info. I'm not talking about what I think I'm talking about LAW which is not contradicted by Regs. Just telling people to get a lawyer and thats that is weak advise. I think people should educate themselves if they want get an attorney and then file. You seem to take the high ground with no factual evidence to back up what your saying.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

If you were allowed to just arrive here on a VWP and immigrate then why if you tell the officer at POE that you intend on doing this are you put on the next flight back to the country you have just arrived from....

If it was not against the law then the POE officer would be saying "Welcome to America" and " Don't forget to do AOS"

If you have intent to immigrate then you can not use the VWP....

Kez

[meauxna 15]

Here is one recent story of someone who had her AOS denied for immigrant intent. She was sent home to go through regular visa processing.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread....975#post4406975

Hi, just wanted to let you guy's know especially for those awaiting interviews.

I had my interview on 6th February 2007 at the London Embassy. My case was slightly different as I had already lived in the USA, went on a visa waiver and was told by an immigration attorney that I could adjust my status even though I entered the USA already married to a US citizen. Had my adjustment of status interview in the US and was told to leave and file my paperwork back in the uk (this all happened 3.5 years ago), as it is illegal to ajust status if I entered the US already married to a USC, the immigration officer approved my I130 but then lost the paperwork.

Back to the London interview, was told that they would have to do further research and that they would let me know in about 1 week. The C.O was very kind and told me that provided I had told him the truth everything should be ok.

After a nail bitting week, I got my visa today.

I am so happy, three and a half years of sheer hell are finally over! My husband and I will be purchasing our ticket ASAP.

[nathmc31 0]

Here is one recent story of someone who had her AOS denied for immigrant intent. She was sent home to go through regular visa processing.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread....975#post4406975

Hi, just wanted to let you guy's know especially for those awaiting interviews.

I had my interview on 6th February 2007 at the London Embassy. My case was slightly different as I had already lived in the USA, went on a visa waiver and was told by an immigration attorney that I could adjust my status even though I entered the USA already married to a US citizen. Had my adjustment of status interview in the US and was told to leave and file my paperwork back in the uk (this all happened 3.5 years ago), as it is illegal to ajust status if I entered the US already married to a USC, the immigration officer approved my I130 but then lost the paperwork.

Back to the London interview, was told that they would have to do further research and that they would let me know in about 1 week. The C.O was very kind and told me that provided I had told him the truth everything should be ok.

After a nail bitting week, I got my visa today.

I am so happy, three and a half years of sheer hell are finally over! My husband and I will be purchasing our ticket ASAP.

Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.

I understand that if one straight out told the POE that they are staying for good that they would be sent packing, however what I am saying is that in reality, what a person has in the back of their minds is something which is in their minds. You are innocent of any intent, unless you make it apparent. Thats reality.

Look I might sound like I am encouraging this avenue, well the question is can you AOS after entering on the VWP answer: yes if you are the immediate relative of a USC. Ziggy I am not a dangerous person, I have dedicated my life to law enforcement, I served in East Timor and Iraq under the UN as a Police Officer. I just think that everyone here is not admitting the law because it has some risk involved and it is just easier to tell everyone that it is illegal. Just because it has a risk involved doesn't make it illegal. crossing the road at a crossing is legal but still carries risk, You should see both points here.

Edited February 21, 2007 by nathmc31

[Kez/JWolf 6]

So if just having the tought in your head does not make it ilegal then would the same apply for someone who is questioned by the police because it has come to light that they are planing a murder.... it only in their head they have not done it but they still get charge with attempted murder...

If you have it in your head that you are moving to the US and you have closed down your life in your own country and then enter the USA and the CBP say to you "what is the reason for your Visit?" and you say "oh I am here on Vacation" then you have lied and are commiting fraud... yes it happens and yes people get away with it... is it misrepresentation of the facts... hell yes.. if on the other hand you say "I am here to get married and to start a new life" you will find yourself detained and on the next flight out...

Kez

[John & Annie 0]

Here is one recent story of someone who had her AOS denied for immigrant intent. She was sent home to go through regular visa processing.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread....975#post4406975

Hi, just wanted to let you guy's know especially for those awaiting interviews.

I had my interview on 6th February 2007 at the London Embassy. My case was slightly different as I had already lived in the USA, went on a visa waiver and was told by an immigration attorney that I could adjust my status even though I entered the USA already married to a US citizen. Had my adjustment of status interview in the US and was told to leave and file my paperwork back in the uk (this all happened 3.5 years ago), as it is illegal to ajust status if I entered the US already married to a USC, the immigration officer approved my I130 but then lost the paperwork.

Back to the London interview, was told that they would have to do further research and that they would let me know in about 1 week. The C.O was very kind and told me that provided I had told him the truth everything should be ok.

After a nail bitting week, I got my visa today.

I am so happy, three and a half years of sheer hell are finally over! My husband and I will be purchasing our ticket ASAP.

Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.

I understand that if one straight out told the POE that they are staying for good that they would be sent packing, however what I am saying is that in reality, what a person has in the back of their minds is something which is in their minds. You are innocent of any intent, unless you make it apparent. Thats reality.

Look I might sound like I am encouraging this avenue, well the question is can you AOS after entering on the VWP answer: yes if you are the immediate relative of a USC. Ziggy I am not a dangerous person, I have dedicated my life to law enforcement, I served in East Timor and Iraq under the UN as a Police Officer. I just think that everyone here is not admitting the law because it has some risk involved and it is just easier to tell everyone that it is illegal. Just because it has a risk involved doesn't make it illegal. crossing the road at a crossing is legal but still carries risk, You should see both points here.

I think everyone is considering both points. It appears to me that most everyone is looking at this from a moral perspective.

As a former Law Enforcement officer i would think you would understand intent.

If i have an ounce of drugs vs an ounce of drugs packaged in individual servings. ( I am using the wrong terminology, but you know what i mean) both would be illegal, but with one i am sure i could get further charges for intent to sell. regardless if you saw me selling it.

in reference of the post, regardless if the person get away with it or it could be forgiven, their intent was to violate the law

On a personal note, i would rather tell the person all of this rather then say it is illegal. That being said, i would rather have the person apply for the appropriate visa. This way the intent was always to keep within the law.

Edited February 21, 2007 by John & Annie

[Boiler 45,908]

Did you read the post correctly, She was already married to the USC before she entered on the VWP. Which is illegal because yes it is obvious intent.

Really......