Did You Lie About Your Trip? 🇺🇸 Watch this!

[SalishSea 18,354]

6 hours ago, Daphne . said:

On social media platforms like Reddit for example, most people don’t even know what consular processing is. So many adjustment of status cases from B1/2’s… And comments like “make sure to wait 90 days before marrying or filing”. People actually think that this is the way to do it “because it’s legal to adjust status from a tourist visa”, but at the same time they’re smart enough to of course not mention anything when they present themselves at CBP. 

EXACTLY.  Also stunning is that this advice is widely proffered by actual lawyers.  

[spicynujac 54]

The K3 thing is ridiculous and needs to be called out when it is "recommended" here.

 

I think they have processed something like 3 in the past decade.  You have FAR better odds of winning the powerball (and then you probably wouldn't care about immigrant status!)

 

But remember, there are plenty of non-immigrants who meet someone while in the USA and decide to get married.  A completely normal and even expected way for things to go.

My neighbor met his Colombian wife when she was here on one of these summer work visas working at an amusement park (lots of national park area jobs are staffed with these 20-somethings as well).

 

It's very normal and even expected that a significant percentage of 20 somethings would meet their spouse while living and working overseas for months or years, and then adjust their temporary visa into a permanent one through marriage.

Heck, I briefly dated an au pair here.  If we stayed together, marriage was definitely on the agenda.

But especially around college age--If I was a parent and my child went overseas for a semester abroad or temporary work, I would certainly anticipate a marriage is a strong possibility...

 

Trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone else and conclude how and what (and WHEN!) their feelings are is almost impossible.

Of course, marrying someone in less than 3 months after you arrive or something.. that's a red flag ( I assume this is where the waiting 90 days advice comes from).  But I think this will always be a gray area that can be exploited.  And it's not hard to understand why some look to cut corners when the legal route is so absurd.

Edited March 20 by spicynujac

[TBoneTX 46,612]

11 minutes ago, spicynujac said:

there are plenty of non-immigrants who meet someone while in the USA and decide to get married

This is fine.  The converse is the infamous "change of mind at baggage claim" when people say they don't intend anything other than a tourist visit but they really have ulterior motives.

[KMG 175]

9 hours ago, spicynujac said:

The K3 thing is ridiculous and needs to be called out when it is "recommended" here.

 

I think they have processed something like 3 in the past decade.  You have FAR better odds of winning the powerball (and then you probably wouldn't care about immigrant status!)

 

But remember, there are plenty of non-immigrants who meet someone while in the USA and decide to get married.  A completely normal and even expected way for things to go.

My neighbor met his Colombian wife when she was here on one of these summer work visas working at an amusement park (lots of national park area jobs are staffed with these 20-somethings as well).

 

It's very normal and even expected that a significant percentage of 20 somethings would meet their spouse while living and working overseas for months or years, and then adjust their temporary visa into a permanent one through marriage.

Heck, I briefly dated an au pair here.  If we stayed together, marriage was definitely on the agenda.

But especially around college age--If I was a parent and my child went overseas for a semester abroad or temporary work, I would certainly anticipate a marriage is a strong possibility...

 

Trying to put yourself in the shoes of someone else and conclude how and what (and WHEN!) their feelings are is almost impossible.

Of course, marrying someone in less than 3 months after you arrive or something.. that's a red flag ( I assume this is where the waiting 90 days advice comes from).  But I think this will always be a gray area that can be exploited.  And it's not hard to understand why some look to cut corners when the legal route is so absurd.

This is understandable in some cases. I however know of one couple that were pastors here in Honduras, ran a church, and suddenly decided one day they were going to use their visitor visas to immigrate to the U.S.  They literally said to another pastor of the church, "here are the keys we are moving to the U.S."  And off they went to their daughter who lives there illegally....

[JeanneAdil 6,766]

19 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Hard to say.  Don't consulates process K1's in the IV unit?  They did back when my now wife went through that process.

they are listed under NIV in the stats 

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics.html

[mam521 2,344]

20 hours ago, MMRF said:

I've seen Hacking himself suggest this on several occasions. 

DOS has a specific 90 day rule that essentially states if you lie to an interviewing officer and, after admission, attempt to gain a benefit within that 90 day period of admissibility, there's potential grounds for willful misrepresentation.  

 

USCIS issued a technical update to policy in June of 2019 regarding clarification of the Department of State's verbiage of the "90 day rule".  If you look at Chapter 3 of the USCIS Policy Manual under the Admissibility volume, it's not mentioned specifically as a "90 day rule".  In the section titled Burden of Proof, it does state:

 

" Although conduct inconsistent with one’s nonimmigrant status and prior representations does not automatically mean there is a misrepresentation, such evidence permits a reasonable person to conclude that the applicant may be inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation, especially if the violation or conduct occurred shortly after the U.S. Department of State (DOS) visa interview or after admission."

 

My interpretation of that is if USCIS suspects you lied to DOS with premeditated intent to gain an immigration benefit, irrespective of whether or not it was within 90 days or outside of 90 days, the burden is on you to prove otherwise and they aren't going to make it easy.  Hacking even mentions that he's asking more questions of his clients now.  This is likely because a lawyer can also be accused of willful misrepresentation when filing on behalf of their client.  I get the impression the current administration is slamming that little loophole door shut because it has been widely abused.   

[Boiler 46,531]

If they refuse adjustment without legal grounds then you would just file a WoM. Suspicion is not enough.

[SalishSea 18,354]

58 minutes ago, mam521 said:

DOS has a specific 90 day rule that essentially states if you lie to an interviewing officer and, after admission, attempt to gain a benefit within that 90 day period of admissibility, there's potential grounds for willful misrepresentation.  

 

USCIS issued a technical update to policy in June of 2019 regarding clarification of the Department of State's verbiage of the "90 day rule".  If you look at Chapter 3 of the USCIS Policy Manual under the Admissibility volume, it's not mentioned specifically as a "90 day rule".  In the section titled Burden of Proof, it does state:

 

" Although conduct inconsistent with one’s nonimmigrant status and prior representations does not automatically mean there is a misrepresentation, such evidence permits a reasonable person to conclude that the applicant may be inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation, especially if the violation or conduct occurred shortly after the U.S. Department of State (DOS) visa interview or after admission."

 

My interpretation of that is if USCIS suspects you lied to DOS with premeditated intent to gain an immigration benefit, irrespective of whether or not it was within 90 days or outside of 90 days, the burden is on you to prove otherwise and they aren't going to make it easy.  Hacking even mentions that he's asking more questions of his clients now.  This is likely because a lawyer can also be accused of willful misrepresentation when filing on behalf of their client.  I get the impression the current administration is slamming that little loophole door shut because it has been widely abused.   

And yet the refrain here on VJ is “intent is determined at POE.”   Which doesn’t really address lying.

[yuna628 9,770]

On 3/19/2025 at 10:34 PM, TBoneTX said:

This is fine.  The converse is the infamous "change of mind at baggage claim" when people say they don't intend anything other than a tourist visit but they really have ulterior motives.

But how does one prove ulterior motives? We know it happens, but how can you prove it? It seems the courts say you cannot prove such intent without some kind of direct evidence. Suspicion is not proof. 

[Dashinka 25,163]

32 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

But how does one prove ulterior motives? We know it happens, but how can you prove it? It seems the courts say you cannot prove such intent without some kind of direct evidence. Suspicion is not proof. 

I imagine it would involve more intrusive digging into things like social media (Reddit, FB, VJ, YT, etc.), text messages, chat logs, etc.  I agree suspicion is not enough, but suspicion could lead to more work for USCIS.

[Boiler 46,531]

30 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I imagine it would involve more intrusive digging into things like social media (Reddit, FB, VJ, YT, etc.), text messages, chat logs, etc.  I agree suspicion is not enough, but suspicion could lead to more work for USCIS.

They could dig all they want if it was me, would not find anything.