I am a U.S. citizen, my chinese women has just came the USA on a travel visa. can i marry her so she can stay in the country with me

[Loki_Go 126]

Nope, I felt the same way before I was even in this situation. Whether they had intention or not, POE has assessed her and given her entry. It's not ours to judge op's lady's intentions

Huh. So it's perfectly legal then? I always thought it was visa fraud. I mean they gave her entry under the premise that she would return... and not stay.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Loki_Go

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Huh. So it's perfectly legal then? I always thought it was visa fraud. I mean they gave her entry under the premise that she would return... and not stay.

She's here, they assessed her upon entry. Intent isn't a. Issue anymore. I'm uncertain which part of that is difficult. So for her to stay and aos is indeed perfectly legal Edited April 13, 2016 by Transborderwife

[Teddy B 17,252]

Huh. So it's perfectly legal then? I always thought it was visa fraud. I mean they gave her entry under the premise that she would return... and not stay.

Yes it's perfectly legal for one to change their mind after entry. It's not up to us to judge what their intention was before entry. With all due respect, I wish you posters who yell fraud at everyone would do some research on this issue before spouting off mistruths. There is case law that reinforces what we're saying. There is no case law that reinforces what you're saying.

[Loki_Go 126]

She's here, they assessed her upon entry. Intent isn't a. Issue anymore. I'm uncertain which part of that is difficult. So for her to stay and aos is indeed perfectly legal

Sorry, I don't want to keep repeating false info if it's not true, that's all.

They assessed her given the fact she would return to her home country. Why even prove strong ties then?

I'm not saying that it's certainly easy to circumvent but I'm pretty sure as it's written on paper it's visa fraud; your opinion of the situation doesn't matter. My original question stands- isn't it visa fraud if you knowingly use a visitor visa (to which you've agreed to return to your home country and had to prove strong ties back to) to stay, marry and adjust?

Yes it's perfectly legal for one to change their mind after entry. It's not up to us to judge what their intention was before entry. With all due respect, I wish you posters who yell fraud at everyone would do some research on this issue before spouting off mistruths. There is case law that reinforces what we're saying. There is no case law that reinforces what you're saying.

I never yelled fraud. :/ I just want to be clear that's all. And by posting here and asking questions I am doing some research.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Sorry, I don't want to keep repeating false info if it's not true, that's all.

They assessed her given the fact she would return to her home country. Why even prove strong ties then?

I'm not saying that it's certainly easy to circumvent but I'm pretty sure as it's written on paper it's visa fraud; your opinion of the situation doesn't matter. My original question stands- isn't it visa fraud if you knowingly use a visitor visa (to which you've agreed to return to your home country and had to prove strong ties back to) to stay, marry and adjust?

I never yelled fraud. :/ I just want to be clear that's all. And by posting here and asking questions I am doing some research.

To directly answer your question, knowingly, yes. BUT it's not enough to strictly deny ones aos. If say she was denied due to lack of evidence, they possibly could throw intent in there as well (this last part I'm not entirely sure). But as long as they prove that things are genuine, it's likely not an issue.

[Loki_Go 126]

To directly answer your question, knowingly, yes. BUT it's not enough to strictly deny ones aos. If say she was denied due to lack of evidence, they possibly could throw intent in there as well (this last part I'm not entirely sure). But as long as they prove that things are genuine, it's likely not an issue.

OK, thanks. I didn't know about the not strictly denying part though. I just thought once you were found to commit visa fraud you were done. I know a lot is forgiven through marriage and AOS I just didn't think that could be one of the things.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Loki_Go

[A'n'L 735]

Sorry, I don't want to keep repeating false info if it's not true, that's all.

They assessed her given the fact she would return to her home country. Why even prove strong ties then?

I'm not saying that it's certainly easy to circumvent but I'm pretty sure as it's written on paper it's visa fraud; your opinion of the situation doesn't matter. My original question stands- isn't it visa fraud if you knowingly use a visitor visa (to which you've agreed to return to your home country and had to prove strong ties back to) to stay, marry and adjust?

I never yelled fraud. :/ I just want to be clear that's all. And by posting here and asking questions I am doing some research.

Yes it's perfectly legal for one to change their mind after entry. It's not up to us to judge what their intention was before entry. With all due respect, I wish you posters who yell fraud at everyone would do some research on this issue before spouting off mistruths. There is case law that reinforces what we're saying. There is no case law that reinforces what you're saying.

She's here, they assessed her upon entry. Intent isn't a. Issue anymore. I'm uncertain which part of that is difficult. So for her to stay and aos is indeed perfectly legal

What this all boils down to is that it is the US is overdue for a "clean-up" of their immigration laws/procedures.

Either it should be legal to enter with the intent to adjust status, or it shouldn't be possible to do so. The former I guess would make any visa (including VWP) a dual-intent visa, which sounds a bit stupid.

But, for the time being, all we can do is accept the situation, unfair and contradictory as it might be.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Sorry, I don't want to keep repeating false info if it's not true, that's all.

They assessed her given the fact she would return to her home country. Why even prove strong ties then?

I'm not saying that it's certainly easy to circumvent but I'm pretty sure as it's written on paper it's visa fraud; your opinion of the situation doesn't matter. My original question stands- isn't it visa fraud if you knowingly use a visitor visa (to which you've agreed to return to your home country and had to prove strong ties back to) to stay, marry and adjust?

I never yelled fraud. :/ I just want to be clear that's all. And by posting here and asking questions I am doing some research.

They assessed her and they allowed her entry. Once she is allowed entry, intent is no longer an issue. If they feel that she had intent to immigrate on her tourist visa, they would have sent her home. Proving strong ties to your home country is one of the criteria for being allowed entry.

If intent to immigrate existed before entry and she was caught on it, yes it is considered visa fraud and she would be denied entry, possibly banned even. But once that CBP officer stamps her passport and lets her go, intent is no longer an issue.

If you want to read some case law you can google the Matter Of Cavazos and Matter Of Batista.

Here is a pdf of the case file of Cavazos. It was ruled in an immigration court that intent alone is not enough to deny AOS.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/17/2750.pdf

[Transborderwife 4,666]

What this all boils down to is that it is the US is overdue for a "clean-up" of their immigration laws/procedures.

Either it should be legal to enter with the intent to adjust status, or it shouldn't be possible to do so. The former I guess would make any visa (including VWP) a dual-intent visa, which sounds a bit stupid.

But, for the time being, all we can do is accept the situation, unfair and contradictory as it might be.

Personally, I believe that you should be able to enter and adjust intent or no intent. Canada does it this way only it takes you about 2 years before you can leave the country (as opposed to 90 days like the USA). Kind of a consequence of entering to adjust if you will.

[discoverusa 277]

When I first joined visajourney about three years ago I found this topic and constant bickering about intent vaguely entertaining. Fast forward three years of daily reading it is getting REALLY annoying to hear some members constantly yell FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD.

Can we please include a paragraph in guides explaing the sytuation to less experienced members? About intent and all, providing links to case studies, etc.

Please...

I can't believe we have to go through this bs about once a week here. And the long time members should know better.

Amen.

[Teddy B 17,252]

For those that want to educate themselves on this matter. This is right from the USCIS website.

Matter Of Batista: https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/INT/HTML/INT/0-0-0-65/0-0-0-4012.html

[A'n'L 735]

Personally, I believe that you should be able to enter and adjust intent or no intent. Canada does it this way only it takes you about 2 years before you can leave the country (as opposed to 90 days like the USA). Kind of a consequence of entering to adjust if you will.

Yes, I agree. In Norway it's the same, as long as you entered legally - you can marry and stay.

Lately, I feel every other post on this forum has been either

A) My wife/husband entered on a tourist wisa - can she/he stay? Answer: Yes, no problem

or

B) My wife/husband is in X country, can she/he come to the US on X non-immigrant visa and stay? Answer: No, it's fraud!

And then trying to explain the unfairness of that to person B who's only wrongdoing was to be forwardthinking.

[Loki_Go 126]

They assessed her and they allowed her entry. Once she is allowed entry, intent is no longer an issue. If they feel that she had intent to immigrate on her tourist visa, they would have sent her home. Proving strong ties to your home country is one of the criteria for being allowed entry.

If intent to immigrate existed before entry and she was caught on it, yes it is considered visa fraud and she would be denied entry, possibly banned even. But once that CBP officer stamps her passport and lets her go, intent is no longer an issue.

If you want to read some case law you can google the Matter Of Cavazos and Matter Of Batista.

Here is a pdf of the case file of Cavazos. It was ruled in an immigration court that intent alone is not enough to deny AOS.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/17/2750.pdf

Thanks! Hard to imagine a ruling from 1980 still has merit but it is what it is. And I agree it's far from a perfected system, the only thing I want to avoid is giving incorrect information. It's a quagmire of a process as it is.

And that's true about CBP deciding beforehand if it looks like she had intent. With that bit of info I can see how the intent afterwards is more of a non issue.

[Loki_Go 126]

When I first joined visajourney about three years ago I found this topic and constant bickering about intent vaguely entertaining. Fast forward three years of daily reading it is getting REALLY annoying to hear some members constantly yell FRAUD, FRAUD, FRAUD.

Can we please include a paragraph in guides explaing the sytuation to less experienced members? About intent and all, providing links to case studies, etc.

Please...

Amen.

Some day I won't be so "less experienced". I'm really glad this is getting cleared up and I caught this thread. Now I know.

It's equally frustrating to have a "very experienced" member look down on me and answer in a contrite or hostile way to try to make me feel badly about posting. It goes a little both ways.

I agree about updating the guides though. Good idea.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Thanks! Hard to imagine a ruling from 1980 still has merit but it is what it is. And I agree it's far from a perfected system, the only thing I want to avoid is giving incorrect information. It's a quagmire of a process as it is.

And that's true about CBP deciding beforehand if it looks like she had intent. With that bit of info I can see how the intent afterwards is more of a non issue.

On the flipside of that, it's hard to imagine that this was irradicated in 1980 and people still don't know about it.

It's good that you want to learn and get it right. people like you become good assets here.

I feel bad for the op of this thread having to sift through this mess. But it is a good learning tool for members.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Teddy B