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

[Dr_LHA 3]

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.

You've changed your tune. According to your previous posts, any immediate relative can get AOS even if they come on VWP. Now you're saying "obvious intent" is illegal and cause for denial? What if an unmarried person arrives on VWP on day 1, gets married on day 2 and files AOS on day 3. Isn't that "obvious intent" as well and therefore illegal and cause for denial of AOS? That contradicts your previous statements doesn't it?

Edited February 21, 2007 by dr_lha

[Kez/JWolf 6]

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.

You've changed your tune. According to your previous posts, any immediate relative can get AOS even if they come on VWP. Now you're saying "obvious intent" is illegal and cause for denial? What if an unmarried person arrives on VWP on day 1, gets married on day 2 and files AOS on day 3. Isn't that "obvious intent" as well and therefore illegal and cause for denial of AOS? That contradicts your previous statements doesn't it?

I agree with dr_lha if you are now saying that to already be married to a USC and you enter then you have intent and it is therefore illegal... so what about Parents, Children who enter using VWP with intent? that then must be illegal as well...

The only legal way to do AOS from VWP/tourist visa is for a spur of the moment wedding to happen while you are here on vacation... same goes for a parent I know a couple who's parents came over for 4 weeks vacation... Father died suddenly during the 2nd week, Mother could not face going home alone to live alone and she filed for AOS and now has a greencard... the Mother did not have intent on entry so therefore she was approved for AOS...

Kez

Edited February 21, 2007 by Niagaenola

[nathmc31 0]

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.

You've changed your tune. According to your previous posts, any immediate relative can get AOS even if they come on VWP. Now you're saying "obvious intent" is illegal and cause for denial? What if an unmarried person arrives on VWP on day 1, gets married on day 2 and files AOS on day 3. Isn't that "obvious intent" as well and therefore illegal and cause for denial of AOS? That contradicts your previous statements doesn't it?

No I haven't change my tune at all. I never said once that if a person who admits intent to remain when entering, that they cant be sent packing, what I have said is that if they are paroled into the US and marry becoming the immediate relative of a USC or if they are mum and dad or children under 21 of a USC that has been paroled into the US on the VWP then they can AOS legally. That's what I have been saying all along. I provided the area of the Immigration Act. If you still choose not to believe it then that is your choice.

Edited February 21, 2007 by nathmc31

[Kez/JWolf 6]

A person who intends to immigrate using the VWP/tourist visa and does not admit it at POE is committing an act of fraud... and if at USCIS interview they are asked about their links to there home country and what they did with their house, job, car are they then going to say oh well I sold them... or are they going to lie again... and remember you have to prove you did not have intent, USCIS does not have to prove you did...

I was never asked about my intent but I did have the evidence to prove that I did not have intent on entry...

Kez

[nathmc31 0]

A person who intends to immigrate using the VWP/tourist visa and does not admit it at POE is committing an act of fraud... and if at USCIS interview they are asked about their links to there home country and what they did with their house, job, car are they then going to say oh well I sold them... or are they going to lie again... and remember you have to prove you did not have intent, USCIS does not have to prove you did...

I was never asked about my intent but I did have the evidence to prove that I did not have intent on entry...

Kez

We are going around in circles.

I understand your opinion, I really do, I dont need you to repect mine. Im ok with that. Im just glad that we all can contribute to a constructive argument. And I do think that it has been constructive belive it or not. Peace

[Kez/JWolf 6]

I just think it is not a good idea to be telling people on here that as long as it is only a thought in your head then you are doing nothing wrong....

If someone wishes to take that risk then that is up to them.... if they find themselves in the US and want to do AOS then I will always advise them to have a chat with a immigration lawyer to check out their own case... they dont need to retain the lawyer but they do need to make sure that they are not making things harder for themselves in the greater scheme of things...

Kez

[Dr_LHA 3]

No I haven't change my tune at all. I never said once that if a person who admits intent to remain when entering, that they cant be sent packing,

But the person in that example didn't admit intent on entering, or else they wouldn't have been let in the USA at all. They got into the USA with a VWP with intent to immigrate, and got deported when at their AOS interview, the interviewing officer determined that they had intent to immigrate when they entered on a VWP and didn't admit it to the CBP officer.

That case is the very one you've been saying all along shouldn't happen because of the clause you quoted from the INA, and yet it has. How can you reconcile this with your point of view that anyone who is successful in getting into the USA on a VWP, regardless of intent, can file AOS with no issues?

[meauxna 15]

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.

You've changed your tune. According to your previous posts, any immediate relative can get AOS even if they come on VWP. Now you're saying "obvious intent" is illegal and cause for denial? What if an unmarried person arrives on VWP on day 1, gets married on day 2 and files AOS on day 3. Isn't that "obvious intent" as well and therefore illegal and cause for denial of AOS? That contradicts your previous statements doesn't it?

No I haven't change my tune at all. I never said once that if a person who admits intent to remain when entering, that they cant be sent packing, what I have said is that if they are paroled into the US and marry becoming the immediate relative of a USC or if they are mum and dad or children under 21 of a USC that has been paroled into the US on the VWP then they can AOS legally. That's what I have been saying all along. I provided the area of the Immigration Act. If you still choose not to believe it then that is your choice.

You're now bringing yet another concept into this--this is the 2nd time you said 'if a person is paroled into the US..'. Parole is a completly other topic, and the paroled person is on much shakier legal standing than if they had been admitted.

I disagree with your assessment about the quoted story as well. The reason this person was bounced was not simply for the fact of being married, although marriage to a USC is a stronger indication of immigrant intent than not.

[John & Annie 0]

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.

You've changed your tune. According to your previous posts, any immediate relative can get AOS even if they come on VWP. Now you're saying "obvious intent" is illegal and cause for denial? What if an unmarried person arrives on VWP on day 1, gets married on day 2 and files AOS on day 3. Isn't that "obvious intent" as well and therefore illegal and cause for denial of AOS? That contradicts your previous statements doesn't it?

No I haven't change my tune at all. I never said once that if a person who admits intent to remain when entering, that they cant be sent packing, what I have said is that if they are paroled into the US and marry becoming the immediate relative of a USC or if they are mum and dad or children under 21 of a USC that has been paroled into the US on the VWP then they can AOS legally. That's what I have been saying all along. I provided the area of the Immigration Act. If you still choose not to believe it then that is your choice.

You're now bringing yet another concept into this--this is the 2nd time you said 'if a person is paroled into the US..'. Parole is a completly other topic, and the paroled person is on much shakier legal standing than if they had been admitted.

I disagree with your assessment about the quoted story as well. The reason this person was bounced was not simply for the fact of being married, although marriage to a USC is a stronger indication of immigrant intent than not.

Thank you, I knew VWP was not parole and did not have the time to look it up to be able to respond correctly.

[Boiler 45,519]

He does not know the difference between parole and admission. There are other phraseology that is wrong which I usually let slide as it is not material.

I think we are waisting our time, a member of the Flat Earth Society.

[John & Annie 0]

He does not know the difference between parole and admission. There are other phraseology that is wrong which I usually let slide as it is not material.

I think we are waisting our time, a member of the Flat Earth Society.

wait....you mean the world is not flat.

say is isn't so

[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/JWolf 6]

My understanding of the difference between admitted and paroled as explained by our lawyer is this:-

Admitted = Your legal self and your actual self are both inside the USA..

Paroled = Your legal self is waiting at the POE for the approval to be admitted, while your actual self is allowed in..

This means that if you get denied approval then as your legal self is not inside the USA you can not challenge the decision...

hope that makes sense...

Kez

[meauxna 15]

He does not know the difference between parole and admission. There are other phraseology that is wrong which I usually let slide as it is not material.

I think we are waisting our time, a member of the Flat Earth Society.

I agree, B, my point in bringing it up is to show how easy it is to read seemingly plain language that means something completely different in legalese.

I don't care if he sails off the edge--I am concerned about who he takes down with him.

I'd like to remind everyone that I have zero dogs in this fight--I found a better solution than VWP AOS (and oh yes I considered it) so I'm not jealous or rightious or whatever other reasons someone thinks that people are opposed to VWP AOS.

I think the same rules apply for parents and children, btw, but for some reason, no one really beats up on folks who plan for those relatives with this method.

[meauxna 15]

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)