Getting married but not staying?

[Sm1smom 252]

20 hours ago, MrHanky said:

"In a cable to American embassies around the world, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson wrote that visitors who require a visa before entering the United States must then follow through on their stated plans for at least three months. If in that period they do something they failed to mention in an interview with a consular official — such as marry an American citizen, go to school or get a job — it will be presumed that they have deliberately lied."

 

This quote is out of context. That is only applicable IF they plan on staying back to AOS or COS. OP already said no such intention exists, the current plan is for them to live in the UK. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Sm1smom

[Pennycat 880]

20 hours ago, MrHanky said:

"In a cable to American embassies around the world, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson wrote that visitors who require a visa before entering the United States must then follow through on their stated plans for at least three months. If in that period they do something they failed to mention in an interview with a consular official — such as marry an American citizen, go to school or get a job — it will be presumed that they have deliberately lied."

 

11 minutes ago, Sm1smom said:

 

This quote is out of context. That is only applicable IF they plan on staying back to AOS or COS. OP already said no such intention exists, the current plan is for them to live in the UK. 

Exactly. Because there is no marriage visitor visa like in the UK (a visa to use specifically to get married-- even destination wedding folks need one), using a visit visa or VWP is fine. The implication, likely left out of the news piece, because people don't really get the distinction anyway, is the marrying *and staying and adjusting status*. OP here is fine. She's asking because she doesn't want to break some rule and then have their CR/IR-1 denied in the future, which is a smart thing to check in on. IMO, people with visa-free or visa-waived privileges are the ones who dig themselves in to the biggest heaps of trouble simply because they're so used to visa-free travel and/or find "creative" ways around what seems unnecessarily complicated and then have massive and unnecessary fallout. OP here is smart to avoid that, most people don't think to. 

[MrHanky 1,377]

39 minutes ago, CatherineA said:

 

Exactly. Because there is no marriage visitor visa like in the UK (a visa to use specifically to get married-- even destination wedding folks need one), using a visit visa or VWP is fine. The implication, likely left out of the news piece, because people don't really get the distinction anyway, is the marrying *and staying and adjusting status*. OP here is fine. She's asking because she doesn't want to break some rule and then have their CR/IR-1 denied in the future, which is a smart thing to check in on. IMO, people with visa-free or visa-waived privileges are the ones who dig themselves in to the biggest heaps of trouble simply because they're so used to visa-free travel and/or find "creative" ways around what seems unnecessarily complicated and then have massive and unnecessary fallout. OP here is smart to avoid that, most people don't think to. 

And where does it say only if AOS?

You're saying they won't look back at previous visit/visa history?

 

[MrHanky 1,377]

1 hour ago, Sm1smom said:

 

This quote is out of context. That is only applicable IF they plan on staying back to AOS or COS. OP already said no such intention exists, the current plan is for them to live in the UK. 

Can you point out where it says it only applies to AOS and it wouldn't affect someone in the future?

[Jeanne Adil 1,651]

15 hours ago, DailyDaley said:

Thank you everyone for your help! I don't know how the VWP will be used or why it would be since my fiance is not applying for residency and will only be staying for a week. From what I can gather, all he needs to do is answer all the questions honestly at border. I'm still trying to get in contact with USCIS or an immigration lawyer so I can double check.

not really immigration in USA to ask,  he can marry in NY state if not staying in the US

your immigration will be with UK

[Boiler 45,575]

2 minutes ago, MrHanky said:

Can you point out where it says it only applies to AOS and it wouldn't affect someone in the future?

Marrying on a visitor visa is not an issue

 

Simples

[MrHanky 1,377]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Marrying on a visitor visa is not an issue

 

Simples

Despite the fact that it says visitor all over the article and "If someone comes to the U.S. as a tourist"

 

So "Marrying on a visitor visa is not an issue" is Simples not true

 

While the OP has no intention of staying here, you never know what their future plans are and how it might affect them, its just something to keep in mind.

[Pennycat 880]

You are quoting a journalist's reporting of a diplomatic cable. Not the cable itself. Here is the cable itself.  And here is the relevant language from it "3) marrying a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States while in a nonimmigrant visa classification that prohibits immigrant intent" (emphasis mine). As I said,  this was likely left out of the news piece because people don't really get the distinction. It is clearly an error or a bad judgement call by the journalist, but we all know better. 

 

What this is doing is allowing State to do what it can to crack down on the phenomenon of people entering to "visit their boyfriend" and then "have a change of heart" and "suddenly" "decide" to marry, stay, and adjust. USCIS, cannot,  as decided in two different court cases, take this into account when deciding to grant AOS, even if they are pretty sure that you willfully lied to get the visa and to gain entry. The US government and this administration in particular still doesn't like the fact that this loophole exists and is frequently exploited and so is using what little power STATE has in the situation to punish people for using a non-immigrant visa to immigrate-- by threatening to withhold future visas (if ever needed). It's never been a problem to simply marry on a tourist visa, there IS no other visa for it. It's the marrying and adjusting part that is the problem.

 

 

 

On top of it, OP's boyfriend won't be entering on a visa so none of it applies to him in the first place.

Edited January 10, 2018 by CatherineA

[Pennycat 880]

3 minutes ago, MrHanky said:

Despite the fact that it says visitor all over the article and "If someone comes to the U.S. as a tourist"

 

So "Marrying on a visitor visa is not an issue" is Simples not true

 

While the OP has no intention of staying here, you never know what their future plans are and how it might affect them, its just something to keep in mind.

 

 

You are being absurd. Please show evidence in the FAM that marrying (and not adjusting) on a visitor visa IS an issue. If it is an issue, there will be a written rule about it (not the other way around-- they don't give you a list of what you CAN do, just a list of what you can't). In good faith, here I am providing the section of the FAM that was updated by the cable linked previously.  Here it is in searchable format: https://fam.state.gov/ Enjoy. 

[geowrian 22,337]

1) The OP would use an ESTA, so there is no CO involved to even tell this to (nor do they require a visa).

2) It's been long held that not disclosing information unless asked is not considered misrepresentation. You can't deceive somebody to try to go around the question, but you aren't required to tell them something that is not relevant to the question(s) being asked.

 

The cable doesn't impact anything here.

[Pennycat 880]

2 minutes ago, Dee elle said:

Rule..

 #1 of everything to do with US immigration and visas.. ALWAYS go back to the source, always read in context......

 

Well, ...... rule 1 and 2 !! Thx Catherine A 

Rule number 3, don't pick a factual fight with a librarian.  (A gov docs librarian, at that!)

[Sm1smom 252]

25 minutes ago, MrHanky said:

And where does it say only if AOS?

You're saying they won't look back at previous visit/visa history?

 

 

If you read the actual memo and not resort to stopping at what Tillerson is reported to have said, you will see it is directed at people who come into the US on a NIV with the mind of processing AOS or COS.

 

Here’s a copy of the actual memo, by the way: (you can find it on the US DOS’s website if you’re wondering where I got it from)

 

[yuna628 9,677]

Good grief, I think that cable is clear that it has no basis or impact on what the OP wants to do. It's allowable, and it happens all the time.

However the OP will need to be honest to the CBP if asked about their intent. They should be well prepared to show proof of ties. They have expressed that they are not remotely interested in remaining here. If the CBP should deny entry, then applying for a K1 should also prove to be successful, even if it will be a fuss. Or they could apply for a UK fiancé visa as well.

 

Marriage is in the domain of the state, and the feds have no control over this - period. The CBP can occasionally warn couples not to marry, but the truth is it is allowable. They know that or are ignorant of that in an attempt to scare a person from overstaying. What is not allowable, is intentionally remaining. The CBP has to make a judgment call based on what info and evidence is provided.

 

Once married the OP can then start the UK process. Make sure you are very prepared for that.

[Pennycat 880]

1 minute ago, Dee elle said:

love it!!!  can you unravel US tax rules too?

Actually, yes! Foreign related stuff (foreign earned income, ITINs etc I got help with that here) but I had a brief stint working for a congressional committee that was related to taxation issues so got some good basics there. PM what you need

[Pennycat 880]

4 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Good grief, I think that cable is clear that it has no basis or impact on what the OP wants to do. It's allowable, and it happens all the time.

However the OP will need to be honest to the CBP if asked about their intent. They should be well prepared to show proof of ties. They have expressed that they are not remotely interested in remaining here. If the CBP should deny entry, then applying for a K1 should also prove to be successful, even if it will be a fuss. Or they could apply for a UK fiancé visa as well.

 

Marriage is in the domain of the state, and the feds have no control over this - period. The CBP can occasionally warn couples not to marry, but the truth is it is allowable. They know that or are ignorant of that in an attempt to scare a person from overstaying. What is not allowable, is intentionally remaining. The CBP has to make a judgment call based on what info and evidence is provided.

 

Once married the OP can then start the UK process. Make sure you are very prepared for that.

Yes, this does bear repeating. Just answer CBP's questions -- they may not ask what their plans are and it's never a good idea to offer information that is not asked for. And have the proof of ties to back up the claim that they are planning to marry and not stay and adjust.

 

Everything should be just fine, they are nowhere near the first person to do this and won't be the last and it was and remains perfectly within the scope of permissibly. If they DO "change their mind" and stay and adjust, THAT is where future visa problems could arise. But that's not the case here and also the people who marry, stay, and adjust don't generally need visas in the future so this is a bit more bark than bite but certainly shows what this administration thinks of this loophole. I'm a bit surprised they haven't shut down the ability to adjust from non-immigrant visas (yet?).