AOS before or after I-94 expires

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

And to answer the question in the first post of this thread:

Yes, your alien spouse who is present in the US on an expired I94 and not under color of law by virtue of a pending application before the Service CAN be removed from the country.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

For those of you who think filing before the expiry of the I94 is unimportant, I would direct you to this PDF from the former INS.

ummmm, so wait, quoting rules from organisations that are no more is valid in court? Can the British still tax me for having too many windows?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

ummmm, so wait, quoting rules from organisations that are no more is valid in court? Can the British still tax me for having too many windows?

INS is legacy to USCIS.

It's the interpretations of the CFR which are relevant.

And I'm unsure about your windows.

[mox 298]

For those of you who think filing before the expiry of the I94 is unimportant, I would direct you to this PDF from the former INS.

The examples in the linked reports all had to do with people seeking to adjust from non-immigrant visas that were not family-based adjustments. I think we all can agree that overstay is forgiven in the case of those adjusting under those auspices (whether K1, K3, VWP, B2, L1, J1, whatever). Moreover, s.248.1(a) specifically does NOT apply to those adjusting as a spouse (or derivative K2s), and 8 C.F.R. 214.2©(4) no longer exists in the CFR, since the memorandum dates from 2003 and the CFRs (all 50 of them) get overhauled annually.

If you could show that family-based visas are subject to this same criteria, you might have a case.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

INS is legacy to USCIS.

In response to that daft statement (defunct organisations literature is defunct - how can they update their literature to reflect changes in law and precedent if they are no longer producing literature?), I say; Wot Mox Said:

8 C.F.R. 214.2©(4) no longer exists in the CFR, since the memorandum dates from 2003 and the CFRs (all 50 of them) get overhauled annually.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

The examples in the linked reports all had to do with people seeking to adjust from non-immigrant visas that were not family-based adjustments. I think we all can agree that overstay is forgiven in the case of those adjusting under those auspices (whether K1, K3, VWP, B2, L1, J1, whatever). Moreover, s.248.1(a) specifically does NOT apply to those adjusting as a spouse (or derivative K2s), and 8 C.F.R. 214.2©(4) no longer exists in the CFR, since the memorandum dates from 2003 and the CFRs (all 50 of them) get overhauled annually.

If you could show that family-based visas are subject to this same criteria, you might have a case.

You know, just because they re-arrange the law doesn't mean they make it go away.

Go to 8 CFR 245.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...CRD&CH=8cfr

(a) The status of an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States 1/ or the status of any other alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner 1aa/ may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if

(1) the alien makes an application for such adjustment,

(2) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and

(3) an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed.

(b) Upon the approval of an application for adjustment made under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall record the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence as of the date the order of the Attorney General approving the application for the adjustment of status is made, and the Secretary of State shall reduce by one the number of the preference visas authorized to be issued under sections 202 and 203 within the class to which the alien is chargeable for the fiscal year then current.

© 1/ Other than an alien having an approved petition for classification as a VAWA self-petitioner, 1aa/ subsection (a) shall not be applicable to (1) an alien crewman; (2) 1/ subject to subsection (k), an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 201(b) or a special immigrant described in section 101(a)(27)(H) , (I) , (J) , or (K) ) who hereafter continues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an application for adjustment of status or who is in unlawful immigration status on the date of filing the application for adjustment of status or who has failed (other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons) to maintain continuously a lawful status since entry into the United States; (3) any alien admitted in transit without visa under section 212(d)(4)© ; (4) an alien (other than an immediate relative as defined in section 201(b) ) who was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor without a visa under section 212(l) or section 217 ; (5) an alien who was admitted as a nonimmigrant described in section 101(a)(15)(S) ; (6) an alien who is deportable under section 237(a)(4)(B) ; 1a/ (7) 2/ any alien who seeks adjustment of status to that of an immigrant under section 203(b) and is not in a lawful nonimmigrant status; or (8) any alien who was employed while the alien was an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 274A(h)(3) , or who has otherwise violated the terms of a nonimmigrant visa.

[sachinky 465]

"Anyone can choose not to complete the process if they wish. There are, however, consequences to such choices. The consequence of failing to file for AOS after entry on a K visa means that your status expires and - just like the visitor who fails to leave at the end of the date desiginated by their I-94 - they are illegally present in the US and can be deported. Entering the US on a K-1 visa and getting married does not provide you with any extra protection when you fall out of status. You are just as much out of status as if you were a visitor."

+10,000 useless immigration points to Kathryn!

[mox 298]

"Anyone can choose not to complete the process if they wish. There are, however, consequences to such choices. The consequence of failing to file for AOS after entry on a K visa means that your status expires and - just like the visitor who fails to leave at the end of the date desiginated by their I-94 - they are illegally present in the US and can be deported. Entering the US on a K-1 visa and getting married does not provide you with any extra protection when you fall out of status. You are just as much out of status as if you were a visitor."

+10,000 useless immigration points to Kathryn!

Katherine is wrong. I know she's a moderator, which gives her extra cred in some eyes, but in this case she's simply wrong. Quoting wrong information doesn't make it right, it just means that wrong information is going to come up more often in forum searches.

Edited February 24, 2010 by mox

[mox 298]

You know, just because they re-arrange the law doesn't mean they make it go away.

Go to 8 CFR 245.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...CRD&CH=8cfr

What exactly is the silver bullet you're referring to in this paragraph?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Katherine is wrong. I know she's a moderator, which gives her extra cred in some eyes, but in this case she's simply wrong. Quoting wrong information doesn't make it right, it just means that wrong information is going to come up more often in forum searches.

I'm very sorry to inform you that she is not wrong.

Edited February 24, 2010 by JohnnyQuest

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

What exactly is the silver bullet you're referring to in this paragraph?

What is it you are looking for? A cite that says "K1 entrants must adjust their status before the expiry of their I94 or they will be denied adjustment of status"?

[mox 298]

I'm very sorry to inform you that she is not wrong.

Oh, a round of "uh-huh!-nuh-uh!" could be a lot of fun, but I'll pass. Hopefully I've salted the search facility enough that along with all the erroneous information being put out there regarding this subject, true and correct information will also be available to the person looking for answers instead of opinions.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Oh, a round of "uh-huh!-nuh-uh!" could be a lot of fun, but I'll pass. Hopefully I've salted the search facility enough that along with all the erroneous information being put out there regarding this subject, true and correct information will also be available to the person looking for answers instead of opinions.

You are a very curious character.

[mox 298]

You are a very curious character.

You have no idea. I'm just getting started!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

If someone can help me find the following post it might help.

About 8 months ago someone posted on this forum that they were checked at one of those highway CBP checkpoints and the woman was put into deportation hearings as a result despite being married on a K1 but had not filed AOS. I believe it all worked out in the end for them but was a huge hassle.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Sousuke