noid recieved

[Nitas_man 3,100]

2 hours ago, Scandi said:

Cool if they have started taken action against people who try to adjust from VWP/tourist visas. 

Letter seems to indicate that she practically confessed to it 

[Dashinka 24,593]

1 hour ago, Nitas_man said:

Letter seems to indicate that she practically confessed to it 

Agreed.  There was a thread a while back where a comment was made that every interview with USCIS or CBP is able to judge intent (paraphrasing) not just the POE, in this case they had the statements from the POE which seem to be contradicted at the AOS interview driving the NOID.  I imagine lawyers will be kept busy if they are starting to probe into adjustment intent at the interview.

 

To the OP, as others have mentioned, get a lawyer and translator and good luck!

[belinda63 3,039]

Sounds like they got her for lying to CBP on entry. She stated she was coming for a visit but during the AOS interview she stated she knew she was coming to stay and adjust. Lawyer time.

Might be easier and cheaper for her to return to Sweden and try for consular processing. Having the baby there would certainly be cheaper and since she has a return flight (required when travelling by VWP) her return won't cost anything. 

[Cryssiekins 976]

If you were attempting to adjust status for your wife from a tourist visa, you should have known your interview would see more scrutinizing than others who applied for correct visas, whether or not this was the original intent.  Further, if you know there is a language barrier and her misunderstanding was a real possibility it was totally irresponsible of you not to have a translator.

 

You definitely need an attorney and a translator, as her contradictory statements at POE and the interview show (regardless of validity) that she lied, and misrepresented her true intention.

 

Best of luck.

[TenderHearted 39]

9 hours ago, JFH said:

It does sound that way but intent alone is not grounds for denial. So something else is going on. 

 

I'm wondering if they suspect it’s a marriage of convenience - what I call “the green card shuffle”. Beneficiary divorces spouse in home country, marries USC, immigrates, divorces, obtains citizenship, remarries original spouse, petitions original spouse. 

This might sound naive, but do people really do that? That's REALLY sad if so. No respect for marriage, and callous to the person who petitions for such a person. That's just plain awful.

[Cryssiekins 976]

Just now, TenderHearted said:

This might sound naive, but do people really do that? That's REALLY sad if so. No respect for marriage, and callous to the person who petitions for such a person. That's just plain awful.

People do.  I wouldn’t say it’s a massive problem, but there are stories.  Someone posted an article a while back of a naturalized citizen who had his citizenship revoked (and I think jail time?) because he did just that.  

 

To me, it’s unfathomable, but I keep forgetting not everyone is honest nor do they have good intentions.  They think they’re smarter and can “beat the system” but getting caught happens, and it has dire consequences. 

 

From the stories I have read, it’s been a man, marring a female USC while his “real” wife (usually an ex-) patiently waits in their home county.  Then once he attains citizenship (and sometimes only LPR status) he divorces the USC and “reconciles” with his first wife.

[Crazy Cat 41,981]

6 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

Sounds like there was totally intent to adjust status.

But...But............if so, this is very significant.....

[Crazy Cat 41,981]

This is possibly one of the most significant threads I have seen on VJ...if intent is now being investigated at AOS interviews........Please keep us informed.

[Unlockable 7,315]

15 minutes ago, TenderHearted said:

This might sound naive, but do people really do that? That's REALLY sad if so. No respect for marriage, and callous to the person who petitions for such a person. That's just plain awful.

Oh, Yes! And some do more than that. Some bring children in this world thinking a child will strengthen there GC case. Knowing all along they are simply in it for immigration benefits and not true love. If you ever have some time on your hands you should browse through some older threads in the Effects of Major Family Changes on Immigration Benefits section of the forum. Some cases will seriously have you shaking your head.

 

As for the OP, I think it may be one of (or a combination of) three things...

1. They are, in fact, cracking down on blatant AOS from non-immigrant visas. 

2. There is legit material misrep that was found.

or

3. There is more to the story... The unofficial VisaJourney motto.

[The_Empyrean 733]

I dont think OP is coming back...

[JFH 12,190]

1 minute ago, The_Empyrean said:

I dont think OP is coming back...

I really hope he does. This case is a game-changer in terms of immigration. 

 

He needs an attorney well versed in this matter. He should study the cases that have gone through the courts where the courts found that intent alone is not enough to deny AOS for immediate relatives. See matter of Batista.

 

He needs to put together a solid case that his wife had no intention and misunderstood the interviewer’s question. I do believe the question was worded in a way to try and trip her up. 

[Cryssiekins 976]

8 minutes ago, The_Empyrean said:

I dont think OP is coming back...

Right?  I think people feel there is always an easy, fast, and positive solution.  Not always the case, and then they storm off in anger.  

 

I hope he does, as I am interested in this outcome.  Terrible situation, of course, especially if it was just a simple misunderstanding -my grandparents English is not great, even after 50 years, and whenever they go visit somewhere, they do say “living”, so I 100% can see how this could be innocent, but I can also see how USCIS would view it, especially since processing times have increased over the last couple years, the temptation to circumvent the process is definitely a risk some people (foolishly) may take.

[Ash.1101 1,756]

 

7 minutes ago, JFH said:

I really hope he does. This case is a game-changer in terms of immigration. 

 

He needs an attorney well versed in this matter. He should study the cases that have gone through the courts where the courts found that intent alone is not enough to deny AOS for immediate relatives. See matter of Batista.

 

He needs to put together a solid case that his wife had no intention and misunderstood the interviewer’s question. I do believe the question was worded in a way to try and trip her up. 

This could be a case where the IO felt that they probably don't have the funds or capabilities to find a lawyer, so they may have viewed it as a get out of America free card.

[The_Empyrean 733]

8 minutes ago, Cryssiekins said:

Right?  I think people feel there is always an easy, fast, and positive solution.  Not always the case, and then they storm off in anger.  

 

I hope he does, as I am interested in this outcome.  Terrible situation, of course, especially if it was just a simple misunderstanding -my grandparents English is not great, even after 50 years, and whenever they go visit somewhere, they do say “living”, so I 100% can see how this could be innocent, but I can also see how USCIS would view it, especially since processing times have increased over the last couple years, the temptation to circumvent the process is definitely a risk some people (foolishly) may take.

Yeah, i always give a letter typed and signed by the person crossing the border that i translated to make sure there are no misunderstandings. My inlaws don't really speak english except 

14 minutes ago, JFH said:

I really hope he does. This case is a game-changer in terms of immigration. 

 

He needs an attorney well versed in this matter. He should study the cases that have gone through the courts where the courts found that intent alone is not enough to deny AOS for immediate relatives. See matter of Batista.

 

He needs to put together a solid case that his wife had no intention and misunderstood the interviewer’s question. I do believe the question was worded in a way to try and trip her up. 

They always try to ask the same question but worded differently, and this time it obviously worked. 

It is a game changer, hopefully he'll report back.

To put up a "misunderstanding" case, yeah, you'll need a solid proof of you're not being able to speak and understand english well enough. But then again, they'll push towards "if you can't speak and understand english, you should hire a translator" and if that AoS and all paperwork was signed by herself, you know, at the end there is a part where it asks whether your filled the forms yourself or were helped by someone. 

[Ben&Zian 4,398]

Would be quite amazing if intent was being assessed finally USCIS even after entry. But this case the OP seemed to literally admit the intent was to stay since they applied for AOS only a month after entry basically. Really wish AOS from other status's in the US would be gotten rid of but until then maybe this is a good start with harder investigations.