Preconceived Intent to marry and adjust status

[ManCharsey 254]

After reading through many of the forums posts, I have noticed a trend in the advice or warnings given to people who ask questions here and one such VERY common warning is : preconceived intent to marry and adjust status.

I think it is way overdue that people continue to issue such warnings or 'scare' people with that. The fact is under immigration law, USCIS can NOT deny any one an adjustment of status or a green card application under preconceived intent to marry and adjust status. This was made into immigration law in 1987 based on these cases:

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/INT/HTML/INT/0-0-0-65/0-0-0-4012.html

Which was enforced by a US court and the evidence is in a USCIS publication.

A denial can however be issued under misrepresentation of facts or willful concealing of material evidence all of which are a subset of visa fraud. So as examples -

1. Someone who applies for a tourist visa and on the DS160 form states that they are married, to establish ties back home and upon the receipt of the tourist visa and subsequent traveling to the US, marries an American citizen and tries to adjust status can be issued a denial under misrepresentation of facts or willful concealing of material evidence to engage in visa fraud.

2. Someone who hides their criminal history in their application and who is later found can also be issued a denial under both clauses.

3. Someone who comes in with a tourist visa and has preconceived intent to marry and adjust status upon being able to go beyond the customs and border patrol agents at the POE and they are not able to establish preconceived intent Can NEVER be denied their green card/adjustment of status application by the clause of preconceived intent to marry and adjust status. USCIS can only probe into the bonafide nature of the relationship or marriage and that is all.

Preconceived intent to marry and adjust status is ONLY established at the port of entry and when there is no such establishment and the said traveler enters the US. It can NEVER be used in immigration law anymore. Same as the 30/60/90 rule.

So I think it would be helpful if people desist from issuing warnings or advice related to preconceived intent to marry and adjust status as it does no longer hold in immigration law since 1987 and since 1987 there has not been a single documented case of its usage.

Thank you for taking the time to read!

[Merrytooth 5,748]

You are right.. USCIS created the loop hole for people to abuse..

So we should encourage anyone who has a B1/B2 visa to just enter US and adjust status, avoiding the long queue to go through the proper way.

Screw the people back home who are trying to apply for B1/B2 visa. And they should also quit whining when their applications get denied.

[Boiler 45,486]

What 30/60/90 day rule?

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

The purpose of a visitors visa is to visit , To abuse it and enter knowing you don't intend on leaving shows a lack of moral ethics and I wish there was a way to screen this type of person out of the immigration process. The US already has enough unethically people here we don't need to open the doors for them.

[bestest 1]

After reading through many of the forums posts, I have noticed a trend in the advice or warnings given to people who ask questions here and one such VERY common warning is : preconceived intent to marry and adjust status.

I think it is way overdue that people continue to issue such warnings or 'scare' people with that. The fact is under immigration law, USCIS can NOT deny any one an adjustment of status or a green card application under preconceived intent to marry and adjust status. This was made into immigration law in 1987 based on these cases:

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/INT/HTML/INT/0-0-0-65/0-0-0-4012.html

Which was enforced by a US court and the evidence is in a USCIS publication.

So I think it would be helpful if people desist from issuing warnings or advice related to preconceived intent to marry and adjust status as it does no longer hold in immigration law since 1987 and since 1987 there has not been a single documented case of its usage.

Thank you for taking the time to read!

This is not as straight forward as you say. a quick search brought up this experience

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/437378-aos-and-preconceived-intent/#entry6314901

they were grilled heavily about intent at their interview. If you do some more searching you'ld probably come up with more.

I Have also spoken with two competent lawyers, both of wich said intent is a real issue.

I would imagine, like you said, at the end of the day you shouldn't leagally get denied. But it seems like some IO's might get you into trouble. You might have to go to a court to fight it.

Intent is certianly something anyone going through immigration must be prepared for. They have to be ready to explain and prove that there was no preconcieved intent.

In THEORY you are right. But unfortunately(maybe for some, fortunately) in practice it is not always so.

[Boiler 45,486]

Do you have a link to a case where Intent was the issue and adjustment not obtained?

[bestest 1]

Do you have a link to a case where Intent was the issue and adjustment not obtained?

No, I don't. I don't really have time to look right now. But the link I gave is a pretty good starting point. If the IO gave them so much trouble..... I would definately suggest anyone to be ready for such a thing.

I am aware that most of the time an IO does not ask about intent.

[MacUK 983]

It could easily be remedied.

A-All incoming tourists are asked explicitly at their POE if they intend to marry and adjust.

Then, when they do file for AOS and they are found to have had intent then they get nobbled for lying when entering.

B-Abolish AOS all together. It does make a mockery of the whole system where people who do it the 'correct' way get seperated for months or years and other people just skip the queue.

It would also mean that more B2s would be approved if the possibility of immigration intent is taken away.

[Boiler 45,486]

There is no correct way.

[MacUK 983]

There is no correct way.

So all those fools waiting for their K1s are just wasting their time?

[Teddy B 17,252]

There is no correct way.

Cracks me up every time someone says "do it the correct way". If it's legal, how is it not the correct way?

So all those fools waiting for their K1s are just wasting their time?

Why are they fools? They made a decision to take a certain path for their immigration that works for them. There are many choices one can make when it comes to immigration.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Teddy B

[Boiler 45,486]

One legal option amongst many.

The one I took, not sure if I would recommend it to others.

[Boiler 45,486]

No, I don't. I don't really have time to look right now. But the link I gave is a pretty good starting point. If the IO gave them so much trouble..... I would definately suggest anyone to be ready for such a thing.

I am aware that most of the time an IO does not ask about intent

Should not be very hard when so many do adjust status from other visa's.

[ManCharsey 254]

Yes it is unfair to state that anyone who enters with a non-immigrant visa and adjusts status is committing visa fraud. That is why the are laws and people trained to enforce those laws. If according to immigration laws it is not illegal, why would anyone have an issue with it because they pursued a different route and perhaps had to wait a longer time to get their adjustments of status. As long as they are not breaking the law (which is by engaging in something that flouts the law) then there is no problem with it. That's why it goes through a process to identify all the things that may be wrong with the application, so if by USCIS nothing wrong is found, that is all that matters. Simple and straight forward.

[ManCharsey 254]

I am still waiting for a single case after 1987 where the denial is based on preconceived intent to marry and adjust status. Federal agencies are regulated by laws and their agents are trained to ensure that they do not breach the law. No immigration agent will deny a case which risks it being thrown out of court and squashed by an immigration judge for something that is clearly indicated in immigration statutes. It is time wasting and a waste of tax payers money and if you know one thing in America, tax payers money is not something to play with.