Adjustment of status on tourist visa

[Josm 30]

5 minutes ago, geowrian said:

  1) Please do not edit the text of somebody's quote. This is prohibited by the the TOS. You may have an auto-translator doing it.

 

2) Can you provide an example of where preconceived immigrant intent was a reason for denial of AOS as the IR of a USC?

Can you indicate how the OP's case materially differs from those in Matter of Battista or Matter of Cavazos so as to why those findings would not apply?

 

I'm actually a proponent that their is no blanket protection of intent due the above cases, but equities involved matter - and those clearly would not be an issue in this case IMO. There is also zero evidence presented that they actually lied about intent at POE...the only claimed issue is timing. The "rule" referenced above does not apply for USCIS adjudication of a benefit, so timing alone is not an issue.

 

Yes, a material misrepresentation at POE can still be an inadmissibility. But preconceived intent cannot be a sole reason for denial of AOS here, per the above BIA rulings.

it is possible that you are right but in my personal case consult with lawyers and they advised me to wait 90 days, for that reason I preferred the consular procedure, my advice is better to wait 90 days

[Crazy Cat 41,886]

2 minutes ago, Wals said:

it is possible that you are right but in my personal case consult with lawyers and they advised me to wait 90 days, for that reason I preferred the consular procedure, my advice is better to wait 90 days

We see a lot of misinformation by attorneys here......Why would 90 days make any difference at all?    Waiting 90 days does not change  the intent a person had when he/she entered the US at POE.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Lucky Cat

[Josm 30]

1 minute ago, Lucky Cat said:

We see a lot of misinformation by attorneys here......Why would 90 days make any difference at all?    Waiting 90 days does not change  the intent a person had when he/she entered the US at POE.

not only from lawyers but also from non-lawyers the best opinion is their own experience

[geowrian 22,337]

Lawyers will almost always go with the safest option.

At the same time, many will tout anything that causes fear or worry, requiring their services to alleviate.

 

Anecdotal evidence / one's own experiences is usually the least reliable evidence. Just because x did something and was fine (or had an issue) does not mean y will have the same experience.

Edited June 14, 2020 by geowrian

[Crazy Cat 41,886]

Just now, Wals said:

not only from lawyers but also from non-lawyers the best opinion is their own experience

I challenge them to name a case which was denied under this "90 day rule"

[Crazy Cat 41,886]

3 minutes ago, Wals said:

not only from lawyers but also from non-lawyers the best opinion is their own experience

The number of successful adjustment cases we see here on VJ indicate their advice is inaccurate.

[Josm 30]

4 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

I challenge them to name a case which was denied under this "90 day rule"

I am not in any competition, I am saying based on my personal experience that I could have solved by adjustment, but I listened to the opinion of two lawyers and took the path that they indicated to me and that fit my conditions.

[geowrian 22,337]

Just now, Lucky Cat said:

The number of successful adjustment cases we see here on VJ indicate their advice is inaccurate.

Not just that, but there are hundreds of thousands of Immediate Relative (IR) AOS cases approved annually. Surely if preconceived intent was a sole reason for denial, we would be able to find some examples of it.

[JFH 12,190]

11 minutes ago, Wals said:

it is possible that you are right but in my personal case consult with lawyers and they advised me to wait 90 days, for that reason I preferred the consular procedure, my advice is better to wait 90 days

Lawyers are in this game to make money. After all, it’s not their status here that is at stake. 

[Josm 30]

3 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

The number of successful adjustment cases we see here on VJ indicate their advice is inaccurate.

Obviously it must be very successful, generally no one enters with a tourist visa and the next day is submitting a residency application.

[JFH 12,190]

Just now, Wals said:

Obviously it must be very successful, generally no one enters with a tourist visa and the next day is submitting a residency application.

And that’s the same with this case, it would seem. We have no idea how long the OP’s parents have been here. Maybe they arrived 10 years ago and have been in overstay for 9.5 years. Nothing was mentioned about them arriving yesterday. 

[JFH 12,190]

2 hours ago, simaysimon said:

I was wondering if I am able to file for my parents’ permanent residency while they are in the U.S on tourist visa.

OP, looks like you are not yet a citizen. Or are you referring to your spouses’s parents? Only USCs can file for parents. If they are not currently in the country they cannot enter as tourists with the intent to stay and adjust status. If their son/daughter is a USC and the parents are already here then they can file for adjustment of status. 

[Josm 30]

4 minutes ago, JFH said:

And that’s the same with this case, it would seem. We have no idea how long the OP’s parents have been here. Maybe they arrived 10 years ago and have been in overstay for 9.5 years. Nothing was mentioned about them arriving yesterday. 

Well, from my experience, I tell you that this forum is very useful, but one does not necessarily clarify all the doubts, I had to investigate a lot and finally pay advice since most of what is discussed here are topics related to wife requests.

[Just Paul 4,595]

Just now, Wals said:

Obviously it must be very successful, generally no one enters with a tourist visa and the next day is submitting a residency application.

Well they do,  well almost.   I get at least one of these "cases" a month over at the clinic.   I had one last year that entered on a tourist, got married and filed for adjustment the week after.   It happens a lot.  Not just from a B visa. With COVID it has happened more.  The issue used to be not understanding the requirements of the I-864 but now you are seeing people getting hung up on the I-944 as the beneficiary is not prepared as they thought.   Maybe that would slow down AOS from NIV but I haven't seen a difference.  The risk now is more getting the I-944 correct then from a 30/60/90 day interpretation.

[Crazy Cat 41,886]

17 minutes ago, Wals said:

Obviously it must be very successful, generally no one enters with a tourist visa and the next day is submitting a residency application.

Once a person is allowed to enter the US on a tourist visa, their intent has been established.  If circumstances change for them, they can legally adjust status.  The subject just never comes up in the interview for adjustment.  Intent at the time of entry is the key.