Adjustment of status on tourist visa

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

39 minutes ago, geowrian said:

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.

There was a case a year ago in the forum.

The applicant entered the US under ESTA. She told the CBP agent she had no plans of moving to the US. The agent contacted the spouse who stated there were no plans for the wife to move. During the interview the applicant stated the purpose of traveling was to live with the husband and child. At that moment, the failure to disclose the true intent at entry, curtailed additional questioning to determine elegibility and the applicant was found inadmissible.

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

31 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

There was a case a year ago in the forum.

The applicant entered the US under ESTA. She told the CBP agent she had no plans of moving to the US. The agent contacted the spouse who stated there were no plans for the wife to move. During the interview the applicant stated the purpose of traveling was to live with the husband and child. At that moment, the failure to disclose the true intent at entry, curtailed additional questioning to determine elegibility and the applicant was found inadmissible.

That is the one and only case I mentioned above.  In the AOS interview she seemed to contradict what she said during a secondary interview at POE.   Misrepresentation.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Lucky Cat

[Josm 30]

.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Wals

[Josm 30]

9 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

That is the one and only case I mentioned above.  In the AOS interview she seemed to contradict what she said during a secondary interview at POE.   

https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=United+States+tightens+rules+for+entry+visas+to+the+country

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

29 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

There was a case a year ago in the forum.

The applicant entered the US under ESTA. She told the CBP agent she had no plans of moving to the US. The agent contacted the spouse who stated there were no plans for the wife to move. During the interview the applicant stated the purpose of traveling was to live with the husband and child. At that moment, the failure to disclose the true intent at entry, curtailed additional questioning to determine elegibility and the applicant was found inadmissible.

That sounds like the problem was the misrepresentation, not the intent as such. She effectively admitted she lied to the CBP officers. 

[simaysimon 30]

1 hour ago, JFH said:

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. 

My naturalization is still in the process. I just had a conversation with my spouse to see if it is possible for them to adjust their status and live with us while their here to visit. That is why i wanted to know if it is possible to do so. Thank you everybody for your opinions!

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

6 minutes ago, simaysimon said:

My naturalization is still in the process. I just had a conversation with my spouse to see if it is possible for them to adjust their status and live with us while their here to visit. That is why i wanted to know if it is possible to do so. Thank you everybody for your opinions!

Are they currently inside the US?  A person can not enter the US via a tourist visa with the intent to stay and adjust status.......visa fraud.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Lucky Cat

[Josm 30]

1 hour ago, JFH said:

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

I deeply respect the profession of the lawyer, everyone in the USA is there to earn money, it is to them that we turn when we do not have the capacity to handle a situation, that is why the lawyers studied and charge for their knowledge, each individual defines his priorities when hiring one .
The truth is that the rule is if it does not apply it is another matter in my personal case I would not expose myself to the discretion of the USCIS officers, and I prefer to do everything to the letter if I am not going to hire an attorney

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

3 minutes ago, Wals said:

I deeply respect the profession of the lawyer, everyone in the USA is there to earn money, it is to them that we turn when we do not have the capacity to handle a situation, that is why the lawyers studied and charge for their knowledge, each individual defines his priorities when hiring one .
The truth is that the rule is if it does not apply it is another matter in my personal case I would not expose myself to the discretion of the USCIS officers, and I prefer to do everything to the letter if I am not going to hire an attorney

How does waiting 90 days change what intent was when a person enters the US?

[geowrian 22,337]

46 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

There was a case a year ago in the forum.

The applicant entered the US under ESTA. She told the CBP agent she had no plans of moving to the US. The agent contacted the spouse who stated there were no plans for the wife to move. During the interview the applicant stated the purpose of traveling was to live with the husband and child. At that moment, the failure to disclose the true intent at entry, curtailed additional questioning to determine elegibility and the applicant was found inadmissible.

Yup, that is the on example I can find (and I have it bookmarked for reference as appropriate). Although there are some key differences from the OP's case:

1) Entered via VWP. AOS from VWP is explicitly prohibited except in IR cases. They also waive their right to contest decisions via entering on the VWP.

2) The issue there appears to have been they admitted to making a misrepresentation at POE. Preconceived intent alone was not the issue.

Edit: I would also note that they never came back to let anybody know how it ended up.

 

33 minutes ago, Wals said:

https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=United+States+tightens+rules+for+entry+visas+to+the+country

This is a list of articles from the NY times about various immigration rules. it is not examples of IRs of a USC being denied due to preconceived intent. It does nothing to further the discussion of this topic / address the OP's case.

 

6 minutes ago, Wals said:

The truth is that the rule is if it does not apply it is another matter in my personal case I would not expose myself to the discretion of the USCIS officers, and I prefer to do everything to the letter if I am not going to hire an attorney

One is always subject to the discretion of the IO or CO (depending if doing AOS or consular processing).

Everything noted here is top the letter of the law. If it was not, it would not be allowed on this website.

Edited June 14, 2020 by geowrian

[Josm 30]

3 minutes ago, Lucky Cat said:

How does waiting 90 days change what intent was when a person enters the US?

I do not define that, since I am not the one who dictates the rules, the one who dictates them knows when and why. I could agree with you on that assessment, but I do not make the rules

[Josm 30]

3 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Yup, that is the on example I can find (and I have it bookmarked for reference as appropriate). Although there are some key differences from the OP's case:

1) Entered via VWP. AOS from VWP is explicitly prohibited except in IR cases. They also waive their right to contest decisions via entering on the VWP.

2) The issue there appears to have been they admitted to making a misrepresentation at POE. Preconceived intent alone was not the issue.

Edit: I would also note that they never came back to let anybody know how it ended up.

 

This is a list of articles from the NY times about various immigration rules. it is not examples of IRs of a USC being denied due to preconceived intent. It does nothing to further the discussion of this topic / address the OP's case.

 

One is always subject to the discretion of the IO or CO (depending if doing AOS or consular processing).

Everything noted here is top the letter of the law. If it was not, it would not be allowed on this website.

what this news shows is that the rule was widely disclosed

[igoyougoduke 1,656]

its evident that if you misrepresent your intentions than there is trouble. People change, lives change and the entire world has changed during COVID and decisions are made for the best . If decisions change, i dont see a reason why parents cant do AOS.  Plus the 90 day rule is not applicable 

 

Burdent is on the applicant to prove.

[Crazy Cat 41,845]

4 minutes ago, Wals said:

I do not define that, since I am not the one who dictates the rules, the one who dictates them knows when and why. I could agree with you on that assessment, but I do not make the rules

I have been here on VJ for more than 4 years.  Many others have been here longer.  There just are no adjustment cases denied under this "rule".  You might be surprised at the number of times we hear that attorneys have advised people to enter the US via a tourist visa and adjust status (as an example)........which is visa fraud.  Attorneys don't always provide accurate info.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Lucky Cat

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

17 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

That sounds like the problem was the misrepresentation, not the intent as such. She effectively admitted she lied to the CBP officers. 

 

2 minutes ago, geowrian said:

2) The issue there appears to have been they admitted to making a misrepresentation at POE. Preconceived intent alone was not the issue

I don't think intent is considered per se as an inadmissibility -unless it is written in some of the non public parts of the USCIS policy manual-.

It might be just one of the many ways material misrepresentation happens.

 

Besides specific questioning about intent at entry during an interview, I wonder how deep officers can/do dig to find it.