IR1 Visa Denied at POE

[Villanelle 4,122]

Hmm well I kinda agree with some of what @Jesserose24 is saying (or trying to say). I get the outrage many have expressed here, but it's not that hard to imagine a conversation where they determined she didn't have immigrant intent at the present time of entry.

 

Yes absolutely you are allowed to 'tie up loose ends' after you enter and activate the visa. But there's a difference between tying loose ends and not being ready to move.

 

It seems there was discussion about going to look at properties for the couple to move into together. So if the questioning went along the lines of where are you going to be living (in the US) and the response was Im not,  we are going to be looking for houses the next few weeks because we are not ready, and I still have my job and stuff to deal with in Canada- then yeah she shouldn't enter on the IR visa. 

 

The request for certain things to establish her immigrant intent are specific to her based on what she said at POE (or what they interpreted it as) and should not be viewed as anything more.

 

I think the main takeaway here is words matter. It's not enough to simply know what to say but to understand why you need to say it a certain way. Some times people get so caught up in thinking they know the regulations so well that there's no way it could go wrong. I believe in the first post the OP said something where he called his wife stupid for not activating the visa immediately after getting it. So they obviously had different viewpoints on the matter and she probably presented herself in a 'not ready ' way because I think honestly she wasn't ready and was attempting to enter with it because the OP insisted she should as all the concerns she had about loose ends could have been handled by her as an LPR. 

[Boiler 45,442]

He has a house in the US, that is where they are now, they are looking to move into 'their' house. Seems pretty normal.

 

The old adage of when asked what time is it, the answer is either yes or no comes to mind.

[SalishSea 17,801]

3 hours ago, Jesserose24 said:

The other situation, working for the Canadian company and never having US officials find out doesn't make it ok.

What do you mean?  Why would a Canadian LPR in the USA not be able to work for a Canadian company?

[Mike E 11,739]

So more details have trickled in since my last comment and so I too am starting to see the CBPO’s side of this.  
 

So she is driving to the USA to pick up a flight to Atlanta.  Presumably in a car with Canadian plates that she and/or her husband or a relative/friend owns.

 

So  I can imagine the conversation 

 

CBPO: what are you going to do with the car?

 

She: park it at airport. 
 

CBPO: So what you are eventually going to do with the car … you aren’t just going to leave it there?

 

She: I’m going to fly back from Atlanta and go back to Canada with it and do some work at the office while staying at my house there before I go back to Atlanta again.  
 

So things likely went south from there. 
 

If the CBPO had the impression she wasn’t planning to spend the majority of her time in the USA, then I can believe INA allows the CBPO to refuse to endorse the immigration visa.  
 

I think things would have gone differently if she had instead flown to the USA from Canada (but Covid test) or said she was driving to Atlanta, or drove a rental car with a one way rental, or a friend or relative accompanied her who was going to drive the car back to Canada. 
 

Of course this hypothesis is blown out of the water if the vehicle was a one way rental.  

Edited February 21, 2022 by Mike E

[Diane and Chris 651]

3 hours ago, Villanelle said:

I believe in the first post the OP said something where he called his wife stupid for not activating the visa immediately after getting it. So they obviously had different viewpoints on the matter

I don’t think the OP was calling his wife stupid. It was the agent that insinuated that she was. 
 

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Diane and Chris

[Jesserose24 62]

9 hours ago, Villanelle said:

Hmm well I kinda agree with some of what @Jesserose24 is saying (or trying to say). I get the outrage many have expressed here, but it's not that hard to imagine a conversation where they determined she didn't have immigrant intent at the present time of entry.

 

Yes absolutely you are allowed to 'tie up loose ends' after you enter and activate the visa. But there's a difference between tying loose ends and not being ready to move.

 

It seems there was discussion about going to look at properties for the couple to move into together. So if the questioning went along the lines of where are you going to be living (in the US) and the response was Im not,  we are going to be looking for houses the next few weeks because we are not ready, and I still have my job and stuff to deal with in Canada- then yeah she shouldn't enter on the IR visa. 

 

The request for certain things to establish her immigrant intent are specific to her based on what she said at POE (or what they interpreted it as) and should not be viewed as anything more.

 

I think the main takeaway here is words matter. It's not enough to simply know what to say but to understand why you need to say it a certain way. Some times people get so caught up in thinking they know the regulations so well that there's no way it could go wrong. I believe in the first post the OP said something where he called his wife stupid for not activating the visa immediately after getting it. So they obviously had different viewpoints on the matter and she probably presented herself in a 'not ready ' way because I think honestly she wasn't ready and was attempting to enter with it because the OP insisted she should as all the concerns she had about loose ends could have been handled by her as an LPR. 

Thank you for saying this much better than I did. This is what I was suggesting.

[Jesserose24 62]

9 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

What do you mean?  Why would a Canadian LPR in the USA not be able to work for a Canadian company?

There are legalities where the Canadian company must be able to operate from the US. Sometimes it's not asked based on legal obligations (ie some business must be conducted IN a specific province or country to be valid; that's why some documents require the place they're signed to be noted). For legal, employment and tax implications for the company they need to be authorized to operate on US soil.

 

Companies have a responsibility to be legally approved where they operate from. This doesn't come up very often, but if done improperly can have financial penalties for the company.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Jesserose24

[SalishSea 17,801]

1 minute ago, Jesserose24 said:

There are legalities where the Canadian company must be able to operate from the US. Sometimes it's not asked based on legal obligations (ie some business must be conducted IN a specific province or country to be valid; that's why some documents require the place they're signed to be noted). For legal, employment and tax implications for the company they need to be authorized to operate on US soil.

 

Companies have a responsibility to be legally approved where they operate from. This doesn't come up very often, but if done improperly can have financial penalties for the company.

 

 

Ah, okay.  Thanks for clarifying.

[Redro 4,611]

On 2/17/2022 at 3:12 AM, 1800X said:

Yes she is in the US now,  she is on a plane at this moment out of Syracuse New York after entering USA with a visitor visa stamp last night after a lengthy difficult discussion with 3 border agents at the Thousand Island Bridge POE.  I wish there was more to the story and their may be in the way the questions were asked and or answered ?  We have maintained two homes for the past 15+ years so there was is no reason for her to transport any belongings we were giving everything to our adult children as we don't want to pay to move things we don't need.  Maybe her not claiming anything with her threw some kind of flag ?

 

1. Is the rental in Canada in your name or your wife's? 

2. Where were you living between November and your wife's entry in February? (Did you wife enter the US on a tourist visa between November and her most recent entry?) 

3. And who do you work for? 

Perhaps your wife misunderstood and they were actually asking for evidence that you have severed ties with Canada before she tries to activate her visa. 

As it stands it sounds like you both have stronger ties to Canada and she doesn't actually have a need for LPR status at the moment. 

[Kai G. Llewellyn 832]

16 hours ago, Jesserose24 said:

It sounds to me like she referenced her employment in some way.. if she had any intention of becoming American PR she cannot work for the Canadian company in the US (unless they have an American division etc). So landing while demonstrating no actual intent to permanently reside in the US created a flag for this agent. While rare, this would be in keeping with the agents goals and job during screening.

This is absolutely wrong. I'm working for a Canadian company in the US as a LPR.

[Kai G. Llewellyn 832]

13 hours ago, Villanelle said:

Hmm well I kinda agree with some of what @Jesserose24 is saying (or trying to say). I get the outrage many have expressed here, but it's not that hard to imagine a conversation where they determined she didn't have immigrant intent at the present time of entry.

 

Yes absolutely you are allowed to 'tie up loose ends' after you enter and activate the visa. But there's a difference between tying loose ends and not being ready to move.

 

It seems there was discussion about going to look at properties for the couple to move into together. So if the questioning went along the lines of where are you going to be living (in the US) and the response was Im not,  we are going to be looking for houses the next few weeks because we are not ready, and I still have my job and stuff to deal with in Canada- then yeah she shouldn't enter on the IR visa. 

 

The request for certain things to establish her immigrant intent are specific to her based on what she said at POE (or what they interpreted it as) and should not be viewed as anything more.

 

I think the main takeaway here is words matter. It's not enough to simply know what to say but to understand why you need to say it a certain way. Some times people get so caught up in thinking they know the regulations so well that there's no way it could go wrong. I believe in the first post the OP said something where he called his wife stupid for not activating the visa immediately after getting it. So they obviously had different viewpoints on the matter and she probably presented herself in a 'not ready ' way because I think honestly she wasn't ready and was attempting to enter with it because the OP insisted she should as all the concerns she had about loose ends could have been handled by her as an LPR. 

There is not actually a requirement on the IV holder to have immigrant intent when using an IV (remember IV's are single entry). Immigrant intent only comes up as a negative factor in the context of nonimmigrant visas. If someone has an IV it generally doesn't matter whether the holder has immigrant intent or not at initial entry, so long as other requirements were met (i.e. petitioner moving back to the US). ONCE that person is admitted as a LPR only at that point does the intent on not making the US a permanent home come into play. For one to be found to have abandoned LPR status, they must first have that status.

[Crazy Cat 41,806]

9 hours ago, Jesserose24 said:

There are legalities where the Canadian company must be able to operate from the US.

Irrelevant to a valid spousal visa holder entering the US. 

[Mike E 11,739]

5 hours ago, Kai G. Llewellyn said:

There is not actually a requirement on the IV holder to have immigrant intent when using an IV (remember IV's are single entry). Immigrant intent only comes up as a negative factor in the context of nonimmigrant visas. If someone has an IV it generally doesn't matter whether the holder has immigrant intent or not at initial entry, so long as other requirements were met (i.e. petitioner moving back to the US). ONCE that person is admitted as a LPR only at that point does the intent on not making the US a permanent home come into play. For one to be found to have abandoned LPR status, they must first have that status.

CBP suspects  incoming  LPRs of abandoning LPR status all the time and this is supported by the INA.  I don’t see why the the INA would prevent a CBP from denying an IV holder admission if the IV didn’t have immigration intent. 
 

Try this as a thought experiment: if an IV holder told a CBP officer that he plans of staying on day in the USA and then leaving for USA for 180 times and repeating that pattern indefinitely, what outcome would you expect?

Edited February 22, 2022 by Mike E

[Jesserose24 62]

6 hours ago, Kai G. Llewellyn said:

This is absolutely wrong. I'm working for a Canadian company in the US as a LPR.

Did you get approval from your Canadian company? It's not wrong, I've had personal experience with this. It can be done legally, which you may very well be doing. 

[Jesserose24 62]

1 hour ago, Crazy Cat said:

Irrelevant to a valid spousal visa holder entering the US. 

No that's not correct. The company must be legally able to operate on US soil regardless of who it is they've employed. Again, I have first hand experience with this. 

 

I don't think there's any value in you and I going back and forth. I do everything legally and above board, if I want to work for my Canadian company, remotely, from the US permanently - the company has obligations to operate legally in the US.

 

Have a great day.