Provisional Visa for CR-1...?

[Jeanne Adil 1,651]

The only topic provisional visas in USCIS site are those here not eligle for an immigrant visa and need a waiver

still says they need to return home and apply for the correct visa 

https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens/provisional-waiver/provisional-unlawful-presence-waivers

Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers

Versión en español

Since March 4, 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are immediate relatives (spouses, children and parents) of U.S. citizens can apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers  before they leave the United States for their consular interview.  On August 29, 2016, the provisional unlawful presence waiver process was expanded to all individuals statutorily eligible for an immigrant visa and a waiver of inadmissibility for unlawful presence in the United States.

[Ryan H 3,812]

Moved from Progress Reports to Process & Procedures.

[payxibka 10,045]

It is semantics but Rome has a field office for the USCIS.  Most likely they did not file the I-130 directly with the consulate but directly to the ROME office of the USCIS

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

10 hours ago, Yuilicious said:

I will ask her if this is what she did, and if she says she doesn't know, then I will tell her all the issues she may face it later on. I really hope DCF is what she did! 

She may not know the term "DCF" even if that is what she did. A lot of people on VJ use abbreviations that the average person out there doing once off does not know we use   (like we've seen people actually on administrative processing ask what "AP" means when people talk about it). Just ask what she did, presumably interviewed with a consular official.

 

In the same vein I am assuming that when she said "provisional" what she actually meant was that she doesn't have a green card yet, just a visa; she gets the green card (status) on landing.

Edited March 22, 2018 by SusieQQQ

[pushbrk 12,882]

11 hours ago, NikLR said:

Just fyi, there is nothing wrong with entering the USA on ESTA or a tourist visa and marrying then going the CR1 route.  What is illegal is intending to enter the USA on a non-immigrant visa with intent to immigrate.  It is also illegal to lie to the CBP about your intentions.  

True, but it is also not required to disclose all activities one might have on their agenda during their visit.  For example, one is no more required to indicate they are attending a wedding, even if it is their own, than they are to indicate they might enter a public library or museum.  However, when intending to marry in the US, then leave and get an immigrant visa, if you were to indicate the purpose of your visit was to get married, you might be denied entry based on immigrant intent when you have no such intent.  Lying is no good and has bad results but there's lots of truthful answers that will avoid issues at entry.  

 

SOMETIMES intentions change AFTER entry too. 

[NikLR 13,227]

Absolutely agree 

[pushbrk 12,882]

3 hours ago, NikLR said:

Absolutely agree 

I hear stories frequently about spouses who come for a visit with no intention of staying, then something happens to change their mind.  Sometimes it's something dramatic like the USC getting sick or hurt and needs care, a job offer out of the blue etc.  But sometimes the couple just gets to liking being together and works out a way to stay instead of go.  Adjusting status is NOT a problem in those cases.  I've actually NEVER heard of an AOS interview for the spouse of a US Citizen, where intentions at entry was even discussed.

[NikLR 13,227]

24 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

I hear stories frequently about spouses who come for a visit with no intention of staying, then something happens to change their mind.  Sometimes it's something dramatic like the USC getting sick or hurt and needs care, a job offer out of the blue etc.  But sometimes the couple just gets to liking being together and works out a way to stay instead of go.  Adjusting status is NOT a problem in those cases.  I've actually NEVER heard of an AOS interview for the spouse of a US Citizen, where intentions at entry was even discussed.

I have read maybe 2 on the forum.  But intention at entry is satisfied at entry.  

 

The point I was trying to the other person was marrying on VWP and pursuing the CR1 afterwards was perfectly legal, because they said it was illegal.   

[pushbrk 12,882]

6 minutes ago, NikLR said:

I have read maybe 2 on the forum.  But intention at entry is satisfied at entry.  

 

The point I was trying to the other person was marrying on VWP and pursuing the CR1 afterwards was perfectly legal, because they said it was illegal.   

And so is marrying on the VWP and pursuing AOS, as long as that wasn't the intention at entry.  There is no assumption that it was.

[NikLR 13,227]

1 hour ago, pushbrk said:

And so is marrying on the VWP and pursuing AOS, as long as that wasn't the intention at entry.  There is no assumption that it was.

yeah I know.. We've both said the same thing throughout this thread. 

[Yuilicious 65]

Oh my gosh! Thank you so much for everyone sharing your knowledge and educating me!!  

[Yuilicious 65]

On 3/23/2018 at 1:17 AM, NikLR said:

Just fyi, there is nothing wrong with entering the USA on ESTA or a tourist visa and marrying then going the CR1 route.  What is illegal is intending to enter the USA on a non-immigrant visa with intent to immigrate.  It is also illegal to lie to the CBP about your intentions.  

Thank you so much for clarifying what I wrote!