Can I marry on a tourist visa?

[Crazy Cat 41,903]

3 minutes ago, dazed'nconfused said:

Got a source on this?   It's a myth that's been touted everywhere on this forum for so long that I think everyone just believes it, despite there never being a single verifiable story from any user OR news article about an AOS case being denied on that basis.

@ConOfficer had some info on this a few days ago......

[dazed'nconfused 14]

2 minutes ago, missileman said:

@ConOfficer had some info on this a few days ago......

Is it weird if I just went and looked at their profile?  I can't seem to see what you're referring to, though. Unless VJ isn't showing comments in order.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but from all the comments I've seen (I tend to look at the "hot" topics first every time I come to VJ) it seems to me that the link posted above is relating to a manual that isn't used by USCIS when adjudicating stuff?   Unless there's a more recent update than that one from October?

 

[Crazy Cat 41,903]

Just now, dazed'nconfused said:

Is it weird if I just went and looked at their profile?  I can't seem to see what you're referring to, though. Unless VJ isn't showing comments in order.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, but from all the comments I've seen (I tend to look at the "hot" topics first every time I come to VJ) it seems to me that the link posted above is relating to a manual that isn't used by USCIS when adjudicating stuff?   Unless there's a more recent update than that one from October?

 

 

[dazed'nconfused 14]

Just now, missileman said:

 

TY! Don't know how I missed that. 

 

[NikLR 13,227]

https://www.hooyou.com/familybased/exceptions.html

 

Quote

According to two similar appeals cases,the Matter of Battista and the Matter of Cavazos,filed with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), immediate relatives of United States citizens who wish to apply for a change of status or adjustment of status are exempt from being subjected to the 30/60 day rule mentioned above; thus, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens do not encounter the issues of presumed/preconceived fraudulence. 

 

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

 

Also google Matter of Cavazos

 

http://myattorneyusa.com/uscis-and-the-3060-day-rule-and-the-effect-of-preconceived-intent-on-adjustment-of-status

 

If you actually READ this article, every single denied AOS due to preconceived intent was to an LPR spouse, or for employment, or to start a business.  A USC has never had this issue.  They have been questioned, they have had stokes interview, they have been interviewed at home, but they cannot be denied AOS due to preconceived intent due to matter of battista and matter of cavazos. 

 

You must never lie to the CBP and you must not commit fraud.  

Edited May 9, 2018 by NikLR

[KeratNY 76]

3 hours ago, dazed'nconfused said:

Got a source on this?   It's a myth that's been touted everywhere on this forum for so long that I think everyone just believes it, despite there never being a single verifiable story from any user OR news article about an AOS case being denied on that basis.

http://www.nafsa.org/Professional_Resources/Browse_by_Interest/International_Students_and_Scholars/DOS_Expands_Presumption_of_Misrepresentation_Rule_to_90_Days/

[KeratNY 76]

1 hour ago, NikLR said:

https://www.hooyou.com/familybased/exceptions.html

 

 

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

 

Also google Matter of Cavazos

 

http://myattorneyusa.com/uscis-and-the-3060-day-rule-and-the-effect-of-preconceived-intent-on-adjustment-of-status

 

If you actually READ this article, every single denied AOS due to preconceived intent was to an LPR spouse, or for employment, or to start a business.  A USC has never had this issue.  They have been questioned, they have had stokes interview, they have been interviewed at home, but they cannot be denied AOS due to preconceived intent due to matter of battista and matter of cavazos. 

 

You must never lie to the CBP and you must not commit fraud.  

That was written before new guidance from this administration. A tourist visa is non immigrant intent. If you do something immediately that is immigrant intent, you have misrepresented yourself. Marriage to a USC can forgive an overstay or unauthorized unemployment, but not that. From that same link:

 

For purposes of applying the 90-day rule, conduct that violates or is otherwise inconsistent with an alien's nonimmigrant status includes, but is not limited to:

(i) Engaging in unauthorized employment;

(ii) Enrolling in a course of academic study, if such study is not authorized for that nonimmigrant classification (e.g. B status);

(iii) A nonimmigrant in B or F status, or any other status prohibiting immigrant intent, marrying a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States; or

 

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by KeratNY

[KeratNY 76]

7 minutes ago, KeratNY said:

That was written before new guidance from this administration. A tourist visa is non immigrant intent. If you do something immediately that is immigrant intent, you have misrepresented yourself. Marriage to a USC can forgive an overstay or unauthorized unemployment, but not that. From that same link:

 

For purposes of applying the 90-day rule, conduct that violates or is otherwise inconsistent with an alien's nonimmigrant status includes, but is not limited to:

(i) Engaging in unauthorized employment;

(ii) Enrolling in a course of academic study, if such study is not authorized for that nonimmigrant classification (e.g. B status);

(iii) A nonimmigrant in B or F status, or any other status prohibiting immigrant intent, marrying a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident and taking up residence in the United States; or

 

 

Take a look at this lawyer's advice on a similar situation: https://www.justanswer.com/immigration-law/b7dtu-guillermo-senmartin-zambian-arrived-us.html

[NikLR 13,227]

USCIS and supreme court disagrees with you. 

Regardless we have correctly advised the OP in an appropriate course of action with the CR1. 

[KeratNY 76]

Just now, NikLR said:

USCIS and supreme court disagrees with you. 

Regardless we have correctly advised the OP in an appropriate course of action with the CR1. 

Take a look at what this lawyer is advising. In fact he is saying that a year ago you were right. But now you are not. 

https://www.justanswer.co.uk/us-law/b5652-american-citizen-wife-living.html

 

"Had you done this about a year ago, even though it still would have been dangerous to try...had she made it in, you could have applied for her to stay. Now it is a different story,."

[Ryan H 3,812]

The Matters of Battista and Cavazos were written by the Board of Immigration Appeals which are legally binding on USCIS unless the law is changed by Congress (it hasn't been and isn't likely to be anytime soon).  Additionally, no 30/60/90 rule appears anywhere in the USCIS Field Adjudicator's Manual.  The 30/60/90 guideline was written by the State Department and that has nothing to do with the rules USCIS adjudicators must follow and any so called guidance from any Administration does not override the law.

 

**Moderator hat on**

 

***The point about any nonexistent rule in the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual is not to be belabored any further.  If this warning is disregarded; Administrative Action will be taken.***

[zilchfox 296]

Nothing wrong with marrying on a visitors visa, as long as you guys know that they’ll have to go back home as intended and file for CR-1.

 

Do expect to be met with scrutiny at the border if you state your marriage intent, however.

 

If she plans on staying for a very long time, almost maxing out the 6-month allowance as a visitor, also expect additional scrutiny. There are various factors as to why one can be denied entry, so having super solid ties back to Canada will be a must.

[Canerican 242]

There’s proof of immigrant intent by the OP just by posting what they did on this website. There are Immigration officers that do peruse this website. If CBP want to be real picky they can ask to see Facebook, and I would assume possibly this site as well. As well if they ask her about a SO and she lies, it will be misrepresentation. My suggestion to the OP is to get married, whether in the US or Canada, then apply for a spousal visa. OP’s then spouse will then need to go back to Canada and wait out the process. I really don’t know how people can sleep at night telling CBP that they are entering on a B1/2 visiting and then poof change their mind. As another poster said fiancée visa is also an option. 

[acidrain 325]

Something to consider is if any changes are made to immigration your petition could be impacted. When I asked a lawyer about adjusting status he advised against it because the political climate is too dicey. Nobody can predict what this administration will do. Imagine getting through the process and waiting for an interview. Only to discover your petition is going to get tossed or worse. I think any immigration lawyer would advise to play it safe. It's up to each person whether to take on the risk. We were not willing to role the dice so we stuck it out. I'm glad we did. Not sure if it's a bunch of hot air but I keep hearing from everyone (border guards, lawyers, insiders, etc) big changes are going to happen.