Adjustment of status on tourist visa

[jan22 3,056]

1 minute ago, SusieQQQ said:

Case law quoted above indicates this cannot be sole reason for denial. That said....

What I am guessing is going to be more prevalent once travel resumes if that EO stays (or maybe even if not), is more close questioning by CBP at entry about intent. Resulting in (1) more entry denials, or (2) more AOS denials for misrepresentation for those who lied to cbp. The case quoted about this precedent was interesting to me as while I have always thought CBP records main points of entry conversation, others have said they don’t - but they clearly do. 

It wouldn't have to be listed as the sole reason for denial.  Plus, even now there is an allowance for the possibility that an applicant may have committed fraud or misrepresentation of their intent at the POE.

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

6 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

It’s not really key unless OP will take his oath before their stay is up ...

Unlikely, as the filing happened less than 2 months ago. 

[geowrian 22,337]

3 minutes ago, jan22 said:

It wouldn't have to be listed as the sole reason for denial.  Plus, even now there is an allowance for the possibility that an applicant may have committed fraud or misrepresentation of their intent at the POE.

The case would need one of the following to occur:

1) Be materially different than the 2 BIA cases mentioned previously.

2) Eligibility for voluntary departure being revoked (this is why IRs are generally protected - as they would always qualify for an IV abroad immediately and be eligible for this).

3) The AG vacate either or both of those rulings (in which case it would likely go through the court system again w/o a law change or at least a CFR change).

[jan22 3,056]

11 minutes ago, geowrian said:

The case would need one of the following to occur:

1) Be materially different than the 2 BIA cases mentioned previously.

2) Eligibility for voluntary departure being revoked (this is why IRs are generally protected - as they would always qualify for an IV abroad immediately and be eligible for this).

3) The AG vacate either or both of those rulings (in which case it would likely go through the court system again w/o a law change or at least a CFR change).

But a finding that there was misrepresentation of intent at the POE (i.e., true intent was to circumvent the EO) overcomes Point 1.  It could be argued that Point 2 is also covered, as they would not "immediately" qualify for an IV abroad under the EO processing procedures.  And re Point 3, who knows what the current AG will do in this regard under the guise of enforcing the EO?

 

Of course, all this goes away if the EO is not extended...

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

16 minutes ago, jan22 said:

But a finding that there was misrepresentation of intent at the POE (i.e., true intent was to circumvent the EO) overcomes Point 1.  It could be argued that Point 2 is also covered, as they would not "immediately" qualify for an IV abroad under the EO processing procedures.  And re Point 3, who knows what the current AG will do in this regard under the guise of enforcing the EO?

 

Of course, all this goes away if the EO is not extended...

Not misrepresentation. The EO is not the sole reason for people misrepresenting intent, it’s been happening for years as people just want to jump the queue.

Edited June 15, 2020 by SusieQQQ

[HRQX 4,145]

19 minutes ago, jan22 said:

And re Point 3, who knows what the current AG will do in this regard under the guise of enforcing the EO?

That's nonsensical. The EO is implemented at consular posts and POE: "Implementation and Enforcement. (a) The consular officer shall determine, in his or her discretion, whether an immigrant has established his or her eligibility for an exception in section 2(b) of this proclamation. The Secretary of State shall implement this proclamation as it applies to visas pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may establish in the Secretary of State's discretion. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement this proclamation as it applies to the entry of aliens pursuant to such procedures as the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may establish in the Secretary of Homeland Security's discretion." https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/27/2020-09068/suspension-of-entry-of-immigrants-who-present-a-risk-to-the-united-states-labor-market-during-the The BIA precedent decisions mentioned in this thread affect Adjustment of Status for Immediate Relative pursuant to section 245 of the Act. The EO has no bearing on AOS cases.

Edited June 15, 2020 by HRQX

[Katherine P. 0]

On 6/15/2020 at 12:41 AM, Duke & Marie said:

And back to the op question..

 

if they are currently in the country, yes they can apply to adjust.

 

if they haven’t yet arrived and plan to adjust after arrival, then the answer is no. 

I don’t understand it seem like the same answer but explained differently... 

 

of they haven’t arrived, but plan to arrive, stay for a while like the 90 days they say and after that try to adjust their status, how can’t not they do it? 

[Unlockable 7,314]

11 minutes ago, Katherine P. said:

I don’t understand it seem like the same answer but explained differently... 

 

of they haven’t arrived, but plan to arrive, stay for a while like the 90 days they say and after that try to adjust their status, how can’t not they do it? 

Because it is fraud. A visitor visa is not intended to immigrate. When entering the US, the customs officer interviews you and specifically asks what are you coming for. If you say you are coming to visit, you can enter. If you say you are coming to immigrate, you will be denied entry. But when someone says they are coming to visit, then stay for 90 days, then adjust status, that means they LIED to the officer.

 

A visitor visa is simply for visiting. A family-based visa is for immigrating. The simple fact that the immigrant is not in the US yet means that you are planning on using the visitor visa to by-pass the immigration process. But say the immigrant was here already and something happens where they have to say (for example, a women gets pregnant by her husband while here), then they can adjust status legally.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Unlockable
grammar and spelling

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

31 minutes ago, Katherine P. said:

I don’t understand it seem like the same answer but explained differently... 

 

of they haven’t arrived, but plan to arrive, stay for a while like the 90 days they say and after that try to adjust their status, how can’t not they do it? 

They are planning on using a B1/B2 NON immigrant visa to immigrate. THAT IS FRAUD. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Allaboutwaiting

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

Someone posted just the other day about someone denied adjustment becasue they had told CBP they were not going to immigrate but admitted in their interview they had intended that.

 

Do you really want to put your 72 year old mother through that? Ask her to lie to immigration officials on entry, potentially get interrogated as a result and denied entry at that stage, or denied for misrepresentation at interview? That’s traumatizing for just about anyone, I can only imagine how much so for an elderly lady who’s been instructed by her daughter to lie to immigration officials.  Just do it properly. File an i130 for her and let her get an immigrant visa and enter the way she should.

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

10 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Just do it properly. File an i130 for her and let her get an immigrant visa and enter the way she should.

That is if this person is a citizen.

If we go by the limited info on her profile -K1-, she still has to go through a few steps before being able to file for her mother.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Allaboutwaiting

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

37 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

That is if this person is a citizen.

If we go by the limited info on her profile -K1-, she still has to go through a few steps before being able to file for her mother.

She has another thread going (that’s how I know her mom is 72)

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

3 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

She has another thread going (that’s how I know her mom is 72)

I read that thread too.

She hasn't replied to other members inquiring if she is a citizen.

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

4 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

I read that thread too.

She hasn't replied to other members inquiring if she is a citizen.

She posted in the family of citizen thread so I presumed  she was/knew the requirements 
but yeah if she’s not all that happens is her mom is illegal after 6 months then potentially gets deported /has a ban if she overstays 

some people are very short sighted when it comes to immigration  and pay for it long term (and yes some people do get away with it, but not everyone)

Edited June 18, 2020 by SusieQQQ

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

1 minute ago, SusieQQQ said:

some people are very short sighted when it comes to immigration 

I concur.