Entering US on a IR-1 Visa and traveling prior to receiving Green Card and Sponsor working abroad.

[Crazy Cat 41,985]

11 minutes ago, DJJ187 said:

As for a B2, not familiar but will look into this.

A B2 is a tourist visa.

[SansTortoise 27]

Since you’ve already retained legal counsel, I’d have this conversation with them, and do what they tell you. They’re more familiar with the facts of your case than us, and unlike members of this forum if anything goes wrong, “I relied upon the advice of counsel” is something the government recognized as a defense.

[SalishSea 17,980]

4 hours ago, DJJ187 said:

Thank you for all the replies. At this time my spouse has an interview with the Embassy of her country. We are seeking the IR-1 after first considering a tourist visa, I would like my wife to be able to travel to the US when I am visiting family. We were advised by two attorneys and another American who had attempted the tourist visa for his wife, that we would certainly be denied the tourist visa. The American did get a tourist visa for is wife after 5 attempts. He was advised by the Embassy during an interview to do exactly what I am doing. 

 

As to the question about her previous Green Card, following the advise of our attorney, we filed for abandonment. 

 

As far as residing in the US, at this time I am not certain I plan to live full time in the US, but I would be making visits and would appreciate that my wife could join me. Being a US Citizen certainly creates many challenges both in my home country as well as abroad. 

Nope, green card is not for visiting.   One has to wonder where these attorneys were unearthed from.   Bad advice upon bad advice.   
 

OP, it’s unfortunate  that you did not do some basic research years ago, particularly since this isn’t your first experience with US immigration.  
 

A word of advice if your wife does complete the interview:  do not even think of misrepresenting your current plan to circumvent the issue of domicile.  But will not end well, and could result in a permanent bar for your spouse.

4 hours ago, DJJ187 said:

Edited July 15 by SalishSea

[SalishSea 17,980]

59 minutes ago, SansTortoise said:

Since you’ve already retained legal counsel, I’d have this conversation with them, and do what they tell you. They’re more familiar with the facts of your case than us, and unlike members of this forum if anything goes wrong, “I relied upon the advice of counsel” is something the government recognized as a defense.

“I relied on legal counsel” will absolutely not cut it when it comes to misrepresentation and fraud with USCIS/Department of State.   The petitioner/beneficiary is 100% responsible for the accuracy of the contents of their forms.

[SansTortoise 27]

13 minutes ago, SalishSea said:

“I relied on legal counsel” will absolutely not cut it when it comes to misrepresentation and fraud with USCIS/Department of State.   The petitioner/beneficiary is 100% responsible for the accuracy of the contents of their forms.

There’s a difference between making sure the form is accurate and relying on legal counsel to tell you what the law is.
 

Obviously OP needs to be completely honest with both their counsel and the CO, but given that an interview has been scheduled they should be asking their lawyer how to act given the (valid) concerns raised here and how far along they are in the process. They should also feel comfortable relying on their lawyer’s legal advice. They’ve paid for the legal advice. They should use it given the concerns.

[Family 4,065]

1 hour ago, SalishSea said:

“I relied on legal counsel” will absolutely not cut it when it comes to misrepresentation and fraud with USCIS/Department of State.   The petitioner/beneficiary is 100% responsible for the accuracy of the contents of their forms.

True that. However, OP s actions /statements do not constitute fraud….just confusion. 
Though, I am guessing , I will presume wife’s 1st green card was a 2 yr conditional and they missed filing I-751 …otherwise she could have easily entered when pandemic restrictions lifted and filed the I-131.

 

I certainly would have recommended the visitor B-2 ( even if it took 5 attempts ) , considering he has no immediate plans to actually live in the US. …but can’t fault the new attorney for wanting to make bank

[SansTortoise 27]

4 minutes ago, Family said:

However, OP s actions /statements do not constitute fraud….just confusion. 

Yes, this is my point. “I applied for the incorrect visa because my lawyer told me to and was completely honest throughout the process” is neither fraud nor misrepresentation.

 

People are being overly harsh on OP here, even if on substance they’re correct that IR-1 doesn’t seem to match OP’s goals.

Edited July 15 by SansTortoise

[Family 4,065]

10 minutes ago, SansTortoise said:

Yes, this is my point. “I applied for the visa my lawyer told me to and was completely honest throughout the process” is neither fraud nor misrepresentation.

 

People are being overly harsh on OP here, even if on substance they’re correct that IR-1 doesn’t seem to match OP’s goals.

Yes and No. 

‘I relied on legal counsel “ will NOT absolve an applicant of ANY misrep, under ANY circumstances as it relates to USCIS/DOS. 
 

OP s case, we all “know” he was advised by his attorney to make a claim of INTENT TO RE ESTABLISH Domicile….or that attorney took his $$ for nothing. 
 

The consensus of responses on the thread are pretty spot on . .

Edited July 15 by Family

[SansTortoise 27]

23 minutes ago, Family said:

Yes and No. 

‘I relied on legal counsel “ will NOT absolve an applicant of ANY misrep, under ANY circumstances as it relates to USCIS/DOS. 
 

OP s case, we all “know” he was advised by his attorney to make a claim of INTENT TO RE ESTABLISH Domicile….or that attorney took his $$ for nothing. 
 

The consensus of responses on the thread are pretty spot on . .

Yes, we agree. Though I’d add: someone innocently says something wrong vs. is defrauding the government is a judgement call on behalf of the government, and acting on advice in good faith can help show it wasn’t fraud, but a misunderstanding of the law rather than a misrepresentation of facts.
 

Which is why I think OP should have a heart-to-heart with their counsel taking into account all they’ve learned today and move from there.

Edited July 15 by SansTortoise

[pushbrk 13,000]

Misrepresentations noted but for them moment put aside, an immigrant visa can be used this way successfully once or maybe twice.  By the third entry, it will be very obvious the green card  holder is not residing in the USA, and they'll be denied entry.  The issue I see, is to wonder how they got past NVC to an interview.  NVC would have wanted evidence of domicile in the USA, or the petitioner's intent to re-establish domicile.  Neither would be truthful.  Whether material misrepresentations or not, is a separate question.  Please do raise these concerns with the attorney BEFORE the interview.

[Dashinka 24,651]

Just as an example, here is a couple that had issues at a POE when residency was a question.  It is not just at the visa interview where things like using an IV properly can be questioned.