short trip to overseas.. does 90 day rule reset?

[mushroomspore 3,044]

9 hours ago, TNJ17 said:

Actually there is. There was a thread here recently, and I believe you commented on it, about someone who came on a visitor visa and adjusted status. Then a member of their family tried to apply for a visitor visa with tons of ties to their home country and was denied and they said the IO who interviewed them said they would never issue a visitor visa for anyone in their family because this one member of their family had entered the US on a visitor visa to get married and adjusted status. Now, you tell me if it’s worth risking something like that. It might not affect them directly but it may affect indirectly. And it’s so not worth the risk. 

Risk of what? Once again, intent alone is not enough for USCIS to deny an AoS case, especially for a legitimate couple. If OP and his wife had been interrogated by CBP at their POE and they admitted their intentions THEN, they would definitely would've been slapped with punishment. But at this point??? So so so incredibly unlikely to happen.

[TNJ17 1,329]

1 hour ago, MorganandMichael said:

That’s... a completely different situation and that’s not really what the OP is asking about here. Sure, it’s something to consider and maybe should have been mentioned as a possible risk if they do decide to adjust, but that’s not what you were telling them before. You just told them she had to leave. 

She does have to leave. If she stays she’s committing fraud. 

[Diane and Chris 651]

11 hours ago, Boiler said:

Nope

Exactly. I wasn’t saying she wouldn’t be let in. I was saying she wouldn’t be allowed to come in, marry, and then adjust status without leaving. That is all. You can lead a horse to water.....

[Orangesapples 1,954]

9 hours ago, TNJ17 said:

Actually there is. There was a thread here recently, and I believe you commented on it, about someone who came on a visitor visa and adjusted status. Then a member of their family tried to apply for a visitor visa with tons of ties to their home country and was denied and they said the IO who interviewed them said they would never issue a visitor visa for anyone in their family because this one member of their family had entered the US on a visitor visa to get married and adjusted status. Now, you tell me if it’s worth risking something like that. It might not affect them directly but it may affect indirectly. And it’s so not worth the risk. 

And they didn't end up with a ban or a misrepresentation charge, did they? 

 

If the actual risk is that family members might be denied tourist visas then you should say that. However, no one said that, they kept on saying how OP would be charged with fraud or given a ban, which is 100% false. And I'm not sure that even the family members tourist thing is an actual risk - OP is not adjusting from a tourist visa after all and they used their visa for its intended purpose for a while. But even if it was an actual concern (I doubt it) it's a far cry from the fraud charges everyone is trying to scare OP with. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Orangesapples

[Orangesapples 1,954]

20 minutes ago, TNJ17 said:

She does have to leave. If she stays she’s committing fraud. 

She's not. Not according to USCIS. 

 

Why are you so keen on spreading misinformation? 

[Boiler 46,216]

This has been going on as long as I have been on VJ, obviously misinformation is not a breach of the VJ ToS, my Bible should be yours, as I have never seen such a post taken down.

[mushroomspore 3,044]

1 hour ago, TNJ17 said:

She does have to leave. If she stays she’s committing fraud. 

Lol no she doesn't. They answered whatever questions CBP asked them and CBP determined to admit them. The CBP agent decides in that moment what to ask them and how to judge the admittance or denial of entry. Just because they are married doesn't automatically mean anything either way. The moment's gone now; their CBP agent allowed them in and their intent is now moot. USCIS does not have time or energy to pursue "cases" like this.

[Diane and Chris 651]

“Good lord!”  “Jeez!”  Why are you guys so “keen” on putting @TNJ17 down? What they did was ABSOLUTELY wrong. No ifs, ands, or butts about it!  But if you can get away with it, why not go for it as you all seem to condone?  

[Orangesapples 1,954]

28 minutes ago, Diane and Chris said:

“Good lord!”  “Jeez!”  Why are you guys so “keen” on putting @TNJ17 down? What they did was ABSOLUTELY wrong. No ifs, ands, or butts about it!  But if you can get away with it, why not go for it as you all seem to condone?  

Misinformation has no place on this site, that's why. 

[TNJ17 1,329]

40 minutes ago, Diane and Chris said:

“Good lord!”  “Jeez!”  Why are you guys so “keen” on putting @TNJ17 down? What they did was ABSOLUTELY wrong. No ifs, ands, or butts about it!  But if you can get away with it, why not go for it as you all seem to condone?  

Thanks but it really doesn’t bother me. What I said was right and if people wanna make a big deal out of it that’s fine. Just wait until they come back here saying what we said would happen actually did happen and they are now in a pickle and don’t know what to do. Which has happened SO many times on this website. But who cares. They came here to ask for our opinion and I simply stated mine. Do as they please. 

Edited October 14, 2018 by TNJ17

[Boiler 46,216]

So many times, when?

[Orangesapples 1,954]

53 minutes ago, TNJ17 said:

Thanks but it really doesn’t bother me. What I said was right and if people wanna make a big deal out of it that’s fine. Just wait until they come back here saying what we said would happen actually did happen and they are now in a pickle and don’t know what to do. Which has happened SO many times on this website. But who cares. They came here to ask for our opinion and I simply stated mine. Do as they please. 

Please show evidence that it has happened 

[Ryan H 3,834]

 

***Thread has veered off topic to the point where posters are starting to bicker with each other instead of answering the OP; immediately cease and desist and direct further replies to the OP's question(s).***