noid recieved

[davidvs 351]

2 hours 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.

Some of these petioners make tens of thousands of dollars off the arrangement.

[Crazy Cat 41,981]

3 minutes ago, debbiedoo said:

yeah but that is referring to (at the quick scan i did of it) on PLANNING to adjust from a vwp or tourist visa. not sudden and unexpected changes in plans

This is the part which caught my eye:

 

"

Even if the person gets into the U.S. they still cannot adjust status to permanent resident.

Let’s say our Chinese wife gets into the United States on her B-2 visitor’s visa. Remember that all along she was planning to apply for residency, so after entry her husband files and I-130 Petition for Alien Relative and she files an I-485 Application to Adjust Status to Permanent Resident. She’s already in the country, and their marriage is legitimate, so is she home free? No.

An I-485 application for permanent residency is considered an application for admission to the U.S. This is a counter-intuitive concept that many struggle with. Even though the applicant is already in the country, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) treats the person as though they are outside the U.S. and seeking entry. Why does that matter? Because the person is screened for all grounds of inadmissibility.

What are the grounds of inadmissibility? The immigration statute has a long list of rules about whether a person is admissible to the U.S. A person is considered inadmissible if she has certain diseases, has committed certain crimes, is a security threat, etc. But a person is also inadmissible if she has committed immigration fraud. "

Edited June 13, 2019 by missileman

[debbiedoo 2,339]

Just now, missileman said:

Yep.....the fact that the subject even came up is significant, imo.

i dont think it is. i expect us to be asked about the border crossing and why the change in plans. its a totally legitimate question. if she admitted to lying about her intention when she crossed, then yes - big issue

[JFH 12,190]

7 minutes ago, Cryssiekins said:

Having kids just proves you had sex.  You can do that with anyone.  I despise this argument so much bc it isn’t sensible.  

 

Not to say those that have children aren’t in real relationships, but it’s not the key indicator.  Especially when there are couples who want to have children but cannot, for whatever reason.  A childless relationship isn’t any less real.  

Yes, that’s why I left the other forum. The moderator was adamant that you HAD to have children to get through the USCIS stage (for a spousal visa). I pointed out that my ovaries and Fallopian tubes and a large part of my uterus were removed during life-saving surgery 15 years ago but that doesn’t make me any less married to my husband than someone with 12 kids is to theirs. My cousin and her husband are child-free by choice. Been happily married over 25 years. 

[debbiedoo 2,339]

Just now, missileman said:

This is the part which caught my eye:

 

Remember that all along she was planning to apply for residency,

thats the operative phrasing. it was PLANNED. and then OP admitted to it (knowingly or unknowingly)

[Crazy Cat 41,981]

1 minute ago, debbiedoo said:

i dont think it is. i expect us to be asked about the border crossing and why the change in plans. its a totally legitimate question. if she admitted to lying about her intention when she crossed, then yes - big issue

I have seen countless posts where the person said the question was never even asked at the AOS interview.

[debbiedoo 2,339]

Just now, JFH said:

Yes, that’s why I left the other forum. The moderator was adamant that you HAD to have children to get through the USCIS stage (for a spousal visa). I pointed out that my ovaries and Fallopian tubes and a large part of my uterus were removed during life-saving surgery 15 years ago but that doesn’t make me any less married to my husband than someone with 12 kids is to theirs. My cousin and her husband are child-free by choice. Been happily married over 25 years. 

then theres people like me who would rather commit myself than have another child, with paul,. who had a vasectomy.

 

it does amaze me though how often people think a baby proves anything other than you had sex and all your parts work.

[Crazy Cat 41,981]

1 minute ago, debbiedoo said:

thats the operative phrasing. it was PLANNED. and then OP admitted to it (knowingly or unknowingly)

Yes, having PLANNED it is the whole point.........I have seen people say that even if it was pre-planned, the fact that the person was allowed to enter the US invalidates the pre-planning.

[debbiedoo 2,339]

Just now, missileman said:

I have seen countless posts where the person said the question was never even asked at the AOS interview.

ill let you know what we come across LOL

 

it wouldn't surprise me to be asked about it though. as i said, i rather expect it.

 

the langiage barrier too may have played a part and origianl nationality (did we determine they were from somewhere else or am i getting threads confused?)

[JFH 12,190]

8 minutes ago, missileman said:

I have seen countless posts where the person said the question was never even asked at the AOS interview.

Likewise. From what I’ve seen, by the time the AOS interview rolls around, what happened at POE is water under the bridge. The person is here. It’s done. They are more focused on co-mingling of finances, living together in marital union, etc to be satisfied that it was done for all the right reasons than what was said or not said at POE. 

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

31 minutes ago, JFH said:

Maybe they took the children thinking it would be good evidence of a bona fide marriage. It has been asked here before many times and I know of one forum where the chief moderator actually recommends that people have children together to “prove a bona fide marriage” (yep, they actually use the word “prove”). 

 

Just like the couple who sent pictures of themselves to USCIS  having sex to “prove” the

relationship was genuine... 

The children were just the husband's, I thought.

 

There was a time, when afterglow pictures graced VJ as well. 🤣

 

 

5 minutes ago, JFH said:

Yes, that’s why I left the other forum. The moderator was adamant that you HAD to have children to get through the USCIS stage (for a spousal visa). I pointed out that my ovaries and Fallopian tubes and a large part of my uterus were removed during life-saving surgery 15 years ago but that doesn’t make me any less married to my husband than someone with 12 kids is to theirs. My cousin and her husband are child-free by choice. Been happily married over 25 years. 

I'm sorry, but lol what? What about gay couples? Or older couples?  Being child free for a number of reasons is so common now. 

We made it all the way through ROC with no kids, not for lacking of trying, but secondary infertility sets its own rules.

 

2 minutes ago, debbiedoo said:

(did we determine they were from somewhere else or am i getting threads confused?)

Yes. My guess was Somali, but unconfirmed.

 

I wonder if some of this is a little backlash on the Ilhan Omar marriage drama in the press this week. 

[geowrian 22,337]

To be fair, this isn't the first time I've seen this occurring for somebody doing AOS from VWP entry. Others even in recent years have had this happen.

However, it is almost always a single or couple posts stating this but no follow up, no NOID posted, etc. It becomes really hard to determine the validity of the claim and how it ended up.

Maybe it's some inexperienced IO that was incorrectly using intent as a sole basis for denial. Maybe it was because they found a material misrepresentation at POE. Maybe they admitted to immigrant intent at POE. There are many factors that can be considered.

 

So I wouldn't jump to say this is any kind of pattern or that they are cracking down on intent. But I would love more information and to see how this case turns out.

 

Just to follow up on the whole intent issue...look through my past posts for a more in-depth analysis. Effectively "intent is determined at POE" is the short, simplified way to view it. But there is more to it than just that. Whether the petitioner is a USC or LPR can be a factor (or if it's employment-based). The specific equities matter. Eligibility for voluntary departure is a factor (generally spouses of a USC can qualify).

The general rule is they don't pursue it as they have a tall order on their hands. But if one admits to lying about intent and/or misreps at POE, they are not automatically and universally shielded from having that held against them for AOS.

[JFH 12,190]

7 minutes ago, N-o-l-a said:

The children were just the husband's, I thought.

 

He said they have been married 5 years with 2 children (and a third on the way). 

 

No no idea why they are only now putting the wheels in motion to live together. What happened five years ago when they got married? Is there maybe a denial in their past? Strange that it’s taken 5 years and 2 children to get to this stage. 

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

6 minutes ago, JFH said:

He said they have been married 5 years with 2 children (and a third on the way). 

 

No no idea why they are only now putting the wheels in motion to live together. What happened five years ago when they got married? Is there maybe a denial in their past? Strange that it’s taken 5 years and 2 children to get to this stage. 

I must have misread that. 

 

We can only speculate, but it could be that he was waiting for citizenship?

[Crazy Cat 41,981]

14 minutes ago, geowrian said:

To be fair, this isn't the first time I've seen this occurring for somebody doing AOS from VWP entry. Others even in recent years have had this happen.

However, it is almost always a single or couple posts stating this but no follow up, no NOID posted, etc. It becomes really hard to determine the validity of the claim and how it ended up.

Maybe it's some inexperienced IO that was incorrectly using intent as a sole basis for denial. Maybe it was because they found a material misrepresentation at POE. Maybe they admitted to immigrant intent at POE. There are many factors that can be considered.

 

So I wouldn't jump to say this is any kind of pattern or that they are cracking down on intent. But I would love more information and to see how this case turns out.

 

Just to follow up on the whole intent issue...look through my past posts for a more in-depth analysis. Effectively "intent is determined at POE" is the short, simplified way to view it. But there is more to it than just that. Whether the petitioner is a USC or LPR can be a factor (or if it's employment-based). The specific equities matter. Eligibility for voluntary departure is a factor (generally spouses of a USC can qualify).

The general rule is they don't pursue it as they have a tall order on their hands. But if one admits to lying about intent and/or misreps at POE, they are not automatically and universally shielded from having that held against them for AOS.

I don't mean to jump to conclusions......because we weren't there at the interview.........but it is a very interesting subject........I guess time will tell if there is really anything new here.......