Denied I-539 - Does this have any impact on a future CR-1?

[Boiler 46,202]

She was here for a year, seems odd that they did not fo something to resolve her situation, has been gone for a few months and wants to come back in July?

 

I do not see any issue with looking for an extension assuming you have no plans to revisit any time soon. Seemingly not the case here.

 

Problem is seeking another tourist visa with this sort of history will be challenging to  say the least makes you wonder what she does? How she is able to fund her vacations.

 

Anyway as has been mentioned with interviews so far out all this may be moot. Maybe a situation where a K1 does make sense.

[Verrou 1,962]

Even if she didn’t stay in the states for more than the original 6 months, going back “too soon” always put that person under scrutiny especially coming from south East Asia. The question is always what do u do for living. Let alone stayed almost a year and planning to go back in July 

 

b1/b2 visa definitely bye2 

[flicks1998 1,044]

22 hours ago, amm7s@mtmail.mtsu said:

Yes.

 

She had a pending request, and departed before the 240 days. She actually departed before 180.

Im just curious why she overstayed and for so long.  I know you mentioned cancelled flights etc, however as someone who tracks travel restrictions on a weekly and/or daily basis with the Philippines, there were plenty of opportunities to go back early.  Even myself, as a foreigner, was able to travel back and forth.  PAL flights were running quite consistently without cancellations and there were plenty of seats available.  In fact, in November 2020, PAL cut back flights because there were too many empty seats.

[flicks1998 1,044]

6 hours ago, powerpuff said:

I totally understand that. It’s hard to look the truth in the eyes. We’ve all been there. However, arguing with others by claiming they’re providing false information even though it’s taken directly from USCIS is very counterproductive to say the least. To add, unfortunately, his situation is not unique in this whole covid situation. Virtually the whole world cannot get a US tourist visa if they wanted to. And a lot of couples have to look for ways to marry in a third county. And they were successful. I’d advise OP to start researching for countries that would let in US and Filipino citizens. 
 

This has already been talked about in the Philippine section over the last 6-8 months.  There have been some successful cases of USC and Filipinos meeting in Costa Rica, etc and getting married, then filing for the CR1.  In fact, someone had that application approved quite fast before it was sent to the Embassy in Manila. 

[Chancy 6,243]

16 hours ago, flicks1998 said:

I know you mentioned cancelled flights etc, however as someone who tracks travel restrictions on a weekly and/or daily basis with the Philippines, there were plenty of opportunities to go back early.

 

It's very likely that USCIS is aware that Filipino citizens were never banned from returning to the Philippines in 2020 and that there were many flights available.  If so, it's possible that the I-539 request was deemed frivolous if the only reason given was that flights were cancelled.  It wouldn't have taken 6 months to book a new flight.

 

[amm7s@mtmail.mtsu 1]

With all due respect, I am not getting combative because I'm being told something I don't want to hear...

 

I am getting frustrated, because when I do exactly what is suggested of me, and go directly to the source (USCIS / INA 222(g)) and find information from those sources that contradicts the statements made here, it is ignored and dismissed.

 

I am getting frustrated, because when I speak to lawyers (4 different lawyers at this point) who tell me point blank period that her visa is not invalidated, because the portion of INA 222(g) that I am inquiring about is exactly what applies to her, and *all* of those lawyers are advising that we follow through with our July plans, it is wholly dismissed by the people here responding.

 

I came asking for advice and feedback, but from the beginning, the responses seemed insistent that she could not come back, when I asked for clarification, I was accused of protestation, and when I went to the source and found articles from INA 222(g) that positively supported our case, I was called argumentative, and when I have spoken to lawyers who 100% of them I've spoken to have stated to me very firmly that her visa is not revoked and she can use it to come back over here, even with the extension denial, it is dismissed.

 

The attitude on this forum does not come off as one that tries to analyze a situation and help find answers or results, but rather one of "I'm right, you're wrong, if you don't like it, tough". I understand that everyone on this forum has dealt with these types of issues in some capacity, which is why I have come here in the past to ask questions, and come here to ask this question, but the insistence that I am wrong, despite having verbiage from the INA 222(g) itself to support my case, and the advice of numerous lawyers, I'm just dismissed as argumentative.

 

So be it.

[amm7s@mtmail.mtsu 1]

As far as the other inquiry, while there were not travel bans for her going home, I was with her when she was getting flights cancelled on her as late as October. She has documentation of numerous flights booked to go home before her I-94 expired, and those flights being cancelled on her. That's why she filed for the extension in the first place, preemptively to avoid an overstay because she wasn't sure when she was going to finally get a flight and she didn't want an overstay. She has plenty of documentation for all of her attempts to depart throughout her entire stay here. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by amm7s@mtmail.mtsu

[Allaboutwaiting 2,503]

38 minutes ago, amm7s@mtmail.mtsu said:

I am getting frustrated, because when I speak to lawyers (4 different lawyers at this point) who tell me point blank period that her visa is not invalidated, because the portion of INA 222(g) that I am inquiring about is exactly what applies to her, and *all* of those lawyers are advising that we follow through with our July plans, it is wholly dismissed by the people here responding.

The brochure issued by the USCIS regarding extension that many posters have used as source, clearly states that if the visa holder left after the I-94 expired and the extension was denied, the visa is void.

 

I searched further and found an old case -from 15 years ago- about someone who successfully reentered the US even though they left after the I-94 expiration date, but, the extension request was still pending. 

 

Point is that, we could cite as many sources as possible, have opinions and state facts, but the only way to know if she is allowed entry is trying, as, to my knowledge, there is no customer service or online tool that allows you to check if a visa is still valid. 

 

P.S.: Even if the visa was valid, she could still be denied entry. The possibility is always there.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Allaboutwaiting

[Boiler 46,202]

She did not have to go home, she did have to leave the US. 

[amm7s@mtmail.mtsu 1]

6 minutes ago, Allaboutwaiting said:

The brochure issued by the USCIS regarding extension that many posters have used as source, clearly states that if the visa holder left after the I-94 expired and the extension was denied, the visa is void.

 

I searched further and found an old case -from 15 years ago- about someone who successfully reentered the US even though they left after the I-94 expiration date, but, the extension request was still pending. 

 

Point is that, we could cite as many sources as possible, have opinions and state facts, but the only way to know if she is allowed entry is trying, as, to my knowledge, there is no customer service or online tool that allows you to check if a visa is still valid. 

 

P.S.: Even if the visa was valid, she could still be denied entry. The possibility is always there.

I understand that she could still be denied entry, for any reason.

 

But my point is that the same INA 222(g) that has been cited against me, has a specific clause stating that if the alien overstays the I-94, but leaves before the decision is made, that they are not subject to 222(g) (i.e. visa revocation) regardless of approval or denial. The fact that situation is specifically stated leads me to believe that the regular phrasing of "the extension was denied", without the "leaves before the decision was made" qualifier, means that portions applies only to those who are still in the country.

 

The exact law has a specific qualifier for aliens who overstayed but left before the decision was made, and specifically states "regardless of if the extension is ultimately approved"

 

I'm no legal expert, but that qualifier matters.

 

And at least 4 immigration lawyers agree with me.

 

So can she be denied? Yes. She can be denied regardless, even if she has a valid visa and never had an overstay in the first place. But a valid visa certainly makes is much more likely to get in. A valid visa, with ties to her home country (a business she needs to tend to), certainly make it more likely to get in.

[Boiler 46,202]

If she is going to be starting a business in her home country then that makes the whole thing, visiting, CR1 moot.

[amm7s@mtmail.mtsu 1]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

If she is going to be starting a business in her home country then that makes the whole thing, visiting, CR1 moot.

She already has the business. The USCIS is already aware of it. She's made it known to them on all of her previous visits here.

[Boiler 46,202]

1 minute ago, amm7s@mtmail.mtsu said:

She already has the business. The USCIS is already aware of it. She's made it known to them on all of her previous visits here.

She was working in the US? She was here for a year?

[amm7s@mtmail.mtsu 1]

But I'm done with this topic.

 

I've spoken to numerous lawyers about this, and have gotten answers from them. It's clear that people in here just want to be "right". I will follow the legal advice of lawyers that I am dealing with. The stress of having people on a forum have to be right and contradict every step of the way is exhausting.

Just now, Boiler said:

She was working in the US? She was here for a year?

She was not working in the US. No.

[JKLSemicolon 425]

1 hour ago, amm7s@mtmail.mtsu said:

I understand that she could still be denied entry, for any reason.

 

But my point is that the same INA 222(g) that has been cited against me, has a specific clause stating that if the alien overstays the I-94, but leaves before the decision is made, that they are not subject to 222(g) (i.e. visa revocation) regardless of approval or denial. The fact that situation is specifically stated leads me to believe that the regular phrasing of "the extension was denied", without the "leaves before the decision was made" qualifier, means that portions applies only to those who are still in the country.

 

The exact law has a specific qualifier for aliens who overstayed but left before the decision was made, and specifically states "regardless of if the extension is ultimately approved"

 

I'm no legal expert, but that qualifier matters.

 

And at least 4 immigration lawyers agree with me.

 

So can she be denied? Yes. She can be denied regardless, even if she has a valid visa and never had an overstay in the first place. But a valid visa certainly makes is much more likely to get in. A valid visa, with ties to her home country (a business she needs to tend to), certainly make it more likely to get in.

The text that I cited earlier in the thread still has one unknown before anyone here (or any lawyers) can say for certain if 222(g) applies - whether or not the extension request was deemed "frivolous".

 

One way to find out, as you know, is to attempt to enter the US. I'm not sure if there are other ways to check whether the visa has been cancelled before doing that, but it might be worth looking into.