Nigerian B1/B2 restricted from AOS/EOS

[afrocraft 313]

Whatever happened to the 90-day rule for visitors with non-immigrant visas?

 

"Under the new 90-day rule, there’s a presumption of fraud if a person violates his or her non-immigrant status or engages in conduct inconsistent with that status within 90 days of entry."

[NikLR 13,227]

57 minutes ago, afrocraft said:

Whatever happened to the 90-day rule for visitors with non-immigrant visas?

 

"Under the new 90-day rule, there’s a presumption of fraud if a person violates his or her non-immigrant status or engages in conduct inconsistent with that status within 90 days of entry."

DOS manual vs USCIS manual.  DOS has nothing to do with AOS.  AOS has been allowed and intent determined upon entry  Matter of cavazos  https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/17/2750.pdf

[afrocraft 313]

21 minutes ago, NikLR said:

DOS manual vs USCIS manual.  DOS has nothing to do with AOS.  AOS has been allowed and intent determined upon entry  Matter of cavazos  https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2012/08/17/2750.pdf

That's interesting, but I think the key word in Matter of Cavazos is "discretion." The case relates to a nonimmigrant who entered and got married to a US citizen with whom he had had a child 9 years ago. The ruling was that discretion be used to allow him do AOS, given the potential harm to family. That situation is unlikely to hold for most nonimmigrants.

[HRQX 4,145]

1 hour ago, afrocraft said:

Whatever happened to the 90-day rule for visitors with non-immigrant visas?

 

"Under the new 90-day rule, there’s a presumption of fraud if a person violates his or her non-immigrant status or engages in conduct inconsistent with that status within 90 days of entry."

USCIS considers it an analytical tool that is not binding on USCIS: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-j-chapter-3

Quote

This DOS 90-day rule is not binding on USCIS.

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by HRQX

[afrocraft 313]

9 minutes ago, HRQX said:

USCIS considers it an analytical tool that is not binding on USCIS: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-j-chapter-3

 

Really interesting. Crazy country...

[Cheschirecat 176]

9 minutes ago, afrocraft said:

Really interesting. Crazy country...

Always lol 

[NikLR 13,227]

22 minutes ago, afrocraft said:

That's interesting, but I think the key word in Matter of Cavazos is "discretion." The case relates to a nonimmigrant who entered and got married to a US citizen with whom he had had a child 9 years ago. The ruling was that discretion be used to allow him do AOS, given the potential harm to family. That situation is unlikely to hold for most nonimmigrants.

Basically is that Matter of Batista and Matter Cavazos is that intent is determined at entry.  It cannot be the sole factor in determining ability to AOS.  So there is no 30/60/90 day rule for the USCIS. 

[afrocraft 313]

5 minutes ago, NikLR said:

Basically is that Matter of Batista and Matter Cavazos is that intent is determined at entry [Explain this, please. Are you saying that once you're allowed in, you're in the clear regarding intent? I'm not so sure...]. 

It cannot be the sole factor in determining ability to AOS.  So there is no 30/60/90 day rule for the USCIS. [Agreed.]

 

[NikLR 13,227]

Just now, afrocraft said:

 

Yes once you are allowed in, CBP has determined that you do not have intent to immigrate.  So you cannot be denied your AOS based on intent alone.  Period. 

CBP and the USCIS fall under the same department, US Department of Homeland Security. 

[afrocraft 313]

8 minutes ago, NikLR said:

Yes once you are allowed in, CBP has determined that you do not have intent to immigrate.  So you cannot be denied your AOS based on intent alone.  Period. 

CBP and the USCIS fall under the same department, US Department of Homeland Security. 

Even if (and I know this is a far-fetched hypothetical) an email surfaces showing detailed plans to get married to secure a green card before entry on a nonimmigrant visa? Or the applicant finds new religion and fesses up?

Edited May 26, 2019 by afrocraft

[NikLR 13,227]

1 hour ago, afrocraft said:

Even if (and I know this is a far-fetched hypothetical) an email surfaces showing detailed plans to get married to secure a green card before entry on a nonimmigrant visa? Or the applicant finds new religion and fesses up?

Even if you said in your interview you intended to AOS.  It cannot be the SOLE reason of denial.  It can, however, be used with other items.  So if they deem your marriage to be for immigration benefits only and you can't overcome that with evidence they could say, well you are married only for immigration benefits and you intended to aos.  

I don't agree with it... It just is what it is. 

[NYCruiser 423]

On 5/22/2019 at 10:52 PM, ArmyVet said:

That has nothing to do with Nigeria or even someone who has abused the system. This is a common practice for people with pending or approved I-130 petitions, it is to prevent people from committing fraud. In my opinion, this is a good thing and help deter people from "visiting" with the intention of staying.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/12143510/Nigerians-reputation-for-crime-has-made-them-unwelcome-in-Britain-says-countrys-president.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_me&fbclid=IwAR32_JGyZEqD59QY4-4QRZXSibJDBgrrp9CW7JyZ1PyGu9il33NDiuXIUFE