VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Discussions frequently erupt here about adjusting status as an immediate relative after a VWP/Visa Waiver Program entry. Most often, the discussion is around the danger/problems of planning this before entry to the US but early last year, attorney Susan Pai concluded that a wind of change was blowing in DHS and that there were new problems for aliens adjusting after the 90 day VWP entry had expired.
http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=589806

A new case was published last week that was sent to me in private message with a request to post it to the group. User Songbird and I read through it, listened to the oral arguments (amusing) and tried to figure out why this decision would be important to the readers of this forum.
Songbird: I don't want to steal your thunder on this; you are a good reader and a great concluder. :) Thank you for your help with this; all credit to you.

The United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit has said:

At first glance, it appears that there is a conflict between the adjustment-of-status statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)(4), and the VWP statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1187(b)(2). Upon closer examination, however, we believe that they can be reconciled. During the time when a nonimmigrant visitor is within the VWP’s 90-day window, she may submit an adjustment-of-status application based on an immediate relative. An application submitted at that time would not represent a challenge to removal. After the visitor overstays their 90-day visit, however, the effect of the VWP waiver kicks in, preventing any objection to removal (except for asylum), including one based on adjustment of status. All of the circuits to have addressed this issue have held that the VWP waiver prevents an alien from applying for adjustment of status after 90 days have elapsed. See McCarthy v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 459, 462 (5th Cir. 2009); Momeni v. Chertoff, 521 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (narrowing Freeman v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2006), to its facts, as the court in Freeman allowed an adjustment-of-status application filed prior to the expiration of the 90 days under the VWP); Zine, 517 F.3d at 543; Lacey v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 514, 519 (6th Cir. 2007); Schmitt v. Maurer, 451 F.3d 1092, 1097 (10th Cir. 2006). Bayo filed his application for adjustment of status long after his 90 days were up. As a result, his adjustment-of-status application is barred by his valid VWP waiver or by the fact that in the absence of a waiver he never would have entered the United States in the first place.


This tracks with Susan Pai's urgent advice in Feb 09, for VWP entrants to file their AOS applications before their 90 days is up.
As Songbird put it, "You either apply within the 90 day window or you run the real (proven risk) of removal. Full stop."
Her conclusion, with which I agree is this:
This decision, coming on the back of other recent decisions, clearly illustrates the danger implicit in the thinking that marriage to a USC following a VWP entry will offer protection in the event of an overstay. Clearly it will not. The message from this decision would appear to be quite emphatic - VWP entrants seeking AOS based upon an immediate US relative (e.g. spouse) will find little, if any relief, should they apply after the 90 day VWP expiry date.

Because similar decisions have been reached in courts across the country, it could well be that USCIS could decide to exercise this option more frequently.
The reason this matters is twofold:
1) It's been long-maintained that overstay is 'forgiven' (or not calculated) for immediate relatives of USCs
2) By fixating on the VWP overstay trumping the AOS via a citizen marriage, DHS can remove the alien without the court's interference, under the VWP guidelines.

This case is perhaps an example of the government choosing that path exactly because they get to keep it out of the court.
The defendant in this case, Bayo, used a stolen passport from a country of which his is not a native or citizen, and entered the US with it, under the VWP. Instead of going after him for the obvious fraud, the government chose to let the VWP issue stand, so that they had complete control over his removal.

I don't know what else this case might mean (there are some other issues that may be setting new precedent on other topics) but I do think that the posters here who have claimed 'overstay doesn't matter' should be aware that it might matter now, and people adjusting from a VWP should know that what was, in the past, may not be, in the future.
If you consult with an attorney about your AOS, you should ask them to read this decision to see if it may have a bearing on your case.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Good info.

Perhaps we should upgrade the phrase '10-foot pole' to '20-foot pole'?

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

For folks who don't understand the US federal court system, I'd like to add the following:

The Court of Appeals is divided into 11 circuits.

Precedent set in one circuit is not binding in other circuits.

So although this ruling is important and should be well noted, it is not binding in any of the other circuits.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Agreed Fb - however, this statement in the ruling is particularly worthy of note in that it specifies decisions made in the 5th, 9th, 6th, 10th circuits. Including their own decision (7th circuit) that's 5 circuits that have addressed, some more directly than others granted, this issue and reached similar conclusions. This does, imho, indicate that while rulings are not as you rightly say binding in other circuits, should it be raised elsewhere then these decisions could carry weight and impact. Five out of 11 circuits is still a minority, but imo a substantial enough of one to give sustenance to similar cases that may be brought for consideration by USCIS in other circuits :)

All of the circuits to have addressed this issue have held that the VWP waiver prevents an alien from applying for adjustment of status after 90 days have elapsed. See McCarthy v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 459, 462 (5th Cir. 2009); Momeni v. Chertoff, 521 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (narrowing Freeman v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2006), to its facts, as the court in Freeman allowed an adjustment-of-status application filed prior to the expiration of the 90 days under the VWP); Zine, 517 F.3d at 543; Lacey v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 514, 519 (6th Cir. 2007); Schmitt v. Maurer, 451 F.3d 1092, 1097 (10th Cir. 2006).

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Yep! But I thought it best to point it out to those with a more black-and-white view of the law.

BTW, Mo's link ain't working. The summary's here: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page....fco20100120139

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

I really don't understand a lot of the legal terms.

So if someone adjusted status within their 90 days, the time they are waiting for the AOS to be processed is not considered overstay? But if they waited until after their 90 days was up and then filed, the fact that they'd overstayed could prevent them from being able to adjust?

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

That's how I understood it.

Thanks for the post, M. :)

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Precisely! Emphasis on the could. Maybe even raise it to a can, especially if you're living in the 7th Circuit. But it's certainly not a will.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Anyone who overstays is removable. However, some people can contest that in removal (deportation) proceedings. One basis to contest a removal order is because the foreign national is married to a US citizen and/or has an Adjustment of Status pending.

The problem with VWP entrants is that they sign away their rights to contest a removal order, even if married to a US citizen (unless they claim asylum). Worse - they can be removed without a hearing in immigration court, simply by an order of the local District Director. In theory, a VWP entrant who overstayed could file for permanent residence and be issued a removal order and put in detention when s/he turned up for the marriage interview at the District Office.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

So what you're saying is, if someone files before 90 days or after it makes no difference?

The emphasis of the original post was on filing after the 90 days has expired which is why I asked the question about if someone was to file before.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Quite the opposite. If someone properly files before the 90 day VWP window expires then, although the time taken process that application will take them beyond the 90 days, then from my understanding of it they will be afforded protection 'under the color of the law'. Conversely, if you file when your status has already expired (i.e. outside the 90 days of the VWP) then you run the risk should USCIS chose to pursue it of being removed - married to a USC or not.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

That's correct. It's also according to what my immigration attorney said.

What they do is simple - they define what you can do during your legal VWP stay. And as per immigration law you maybe will adjust your status as a immediate relative of a USC.

What they didn't clarify is what happens if they find a intent to stay after getting married and file AOS. I believe it's also subject to removal and waiver of your right to appeal.

However if USCIS decide in a individual case not to persue the intent to stay

you will be most likely perfectly fine to file AOS on grounds of marriage to a USC and of course if you have a " good faith marriage " .

I think this is still not clarifying anything about AOS and VWP.

It's simply rules out the overstay like any other court did + the OP filed AOS based on a stolen passport (do not miss this).

We have dismissed attempts by aliens to take control of their removal proceedings for overstay by pleading fraud (from the court case )


I am not a attorney but that's how I understand the court.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

While it's true Bayo gained fraudulent entry - in the overall scheme of things that issue (as far as DHS was concerned) wasn't really relevant. Fraud entry via the VWP or not it was more expedient for DHS to process this case as a VWP overstay. As Meauxna explains in her opening post;

"By fixating on the VWP overstay trumping the AOS via a citizen marriage, DHS can remove the alien without the court's interference, under the VWP guidelines."

Had Bayo's case been considered as a fraudulent entry as opposed to a VWP overstay then as I understand it Bayo would have had access to the waiver process based upon hardship grounds to his USC spouse should he be placed in removed proceedings. He was admitted and inspected (albeit with a false passport) and as such the due process of law would have allowed him to remain in the USA pending his hardship waiver adjudication. By treating this as VWP overstay DHS were able to expedite his removal under the VWP regulations.

In entering via the VWP Bayo waived the constitutional rights rights afforded under the 5th and 14th Amendments ( ie due process of the law in this case to challenge removal - as all VWP entrants do ) He never really had a leg to stand on, other than trying to alter the field of battle i.e. contest this as a fraudulent entry - which would have had limited mileage (as you rightly state from the court transcript) in the final analysis it is the government not the alien that determines the grounds of removal.

Game, set and match.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

However I am still not a attorney and I also don't know what the courts intent was. I can only imagine that they would have pulled any possible legal
string to get rid of the OP.
As you can read the initiator for this was a passport fraud investigation and
I don't believe that the USCIS want to give guys like the OP any chance to stay in US.
VWP was maybe the obvious reason to get rid of him without a chance to appeal.

I still don't believe the this case is a reference for all VWP overstays and regulates the principle law behind Immigration via VWP.

Maybe one of the attorneys can bring some light into this .

EMartin always like your statements !

What I found most annoying in this forum is the fact that any of those judgements is being used to define in principle why AOS via VWP could be illegal.

As a matter of fact the court stated that a Ajustment of status from VWP
is legal if they are no other grounds for denail.

So my assumption is there is still no principle court judgement which bans or alter the existing regulations for AOS from VWP.

BTW I agree entirely with M 's statement that the goverment decides who they let into the country or not.

Most likely nobody who as already shown his criminal intent.

Kind regards
CCR

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

This what also my attorney told when I adjusted. Hence I filed within the 90 days.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

I'm not an attorney either - and the best that I can do is offer my opinion (based on the courts written and oral transcript of the hearing) fwiw :)
The oral transcript is far more informative as to the arguments than the written account - apart from being highly amusing it was also very enlightening particularly in reference as to the courts confusion why this was not being presented as a fraudulent entry as opposed to a VWP overstay. IMHO, limitations aside re: government not the alien determining the grounds of removal, Bayo's defense team would have had a far better shake of the tree had they pushed for this as opposed to the more abstract argument of due process visa via the extent to which Bayo 'knowingly and voluntarily' waived his rights due to the language barrier as per his entry on the VWP. But I digress :)

The fraudulent passport entry was an initiator in this case however, this was brought to light by Bayo's subsequent AOS application. This begs the question; 'Had Bayo not entered fraudulently on the VWP with a stolen passport (i.e. had he been a bona fide VWP entrant who had overstayed) would his case have been treated more favorably?' IMO, and this is pure supposition on my part, no it would not have. The DHS arguments (although imo at times weak as to why this was being processed as a VWP overstay) were ultimately accepted by the court, hence the decision. In that respect, the fraudulent entry was not really a factor in the ruling - the emphasis was on the VWP overstay and the post 90 day filing.


I agree, it is not a definitive ruling nor interpretation as such however, the specific references in the summation are quite clear and emphatic re: the 90 day window (albeit for that case) The cites to other decisions in 4 other circuits affirming this would seem to indicate that VWP entrants seeking AOS outside of the 90 day expiry - should be aware of the possible risks they face and seek qualified legal advice at the earliest possible stage.

AOS from VWP is not illegal, and I have yet to read anywhere on this board where it is stated otherwise. However, while that is the case it would be wrong to ignore the very real dangers that some people (specifically those on the VWP whose status has expired ) could possibly be faced with when they apply for AOS. From my (albeit limited) understanding, of the decision in this case and others cited, should DHS wish to pursue a removal - the overstay was grounds enough for denial. Obviously, these are particular cases in particular court circuits - and as such the extent to which those decisions can be generalized is unclear. However, five out of 11 circuits have addressed this question from one aspect or another and found in favor of the DHS. That alone would suggest to me that anyone pursuing this path should at the very least err on the side of caution, submit within the 90 day window and engage a qualified attorney to oversee their case.

How many court decisions would you like? In the recent period we have had 5 courts, in 5 circuits address this question in one form or another. True they are not precedential - they are however noteworthy enough to give considerable pause for thought. Which as I understand it is the whole purpose of this discussion being initiated. We are not lawyers, we do not claim to understand the ins and outs of the court system, or the laws/regulations that govern it. At best alls we can do is offer up for discussion the bits we *think* we understand. If our assumptions/ suppositions/ understanding is wrong - then at the very least a discussion of this nature will redress that balance. In the process hopefully we will all acquire more knowledge :)

Finally, court decisions aside ultimately the biggest determining factor in all of this will be to what, if any, extent DHS /USCIS wishes to utilize the option of denial and subsequent removal solely on the grounds of VWP overstay. Happen it could be the case that they would only really chose to exercise this if they felt it was necessary or warranted as a result of other contributing factors. It could well be the case that without other contributing factors - for the most part USCIS will continue, as in the past to 'forgive overstay on the basis of marriage to a USC'. Unfortunately we have no real way of determining this - it's their sandpit and their rules. Alls we can do is make available what information we have. People will make their own decisions, hopefully through discussions like this they will be more informed decisions :)

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

I don't believe this case changes the law at all - it is the case in every jurisdiction that a VWP overstay can be removed and has waived the rights to contest the removal. Whether a particular district enforces that right depends on the District Director.

Thanks!

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

While I agree it doesn't 'change the law' - imho it does give us some indication of how that law can/ has been interpreted (and accepted by the courts) should DHS opt to pursue similar cases. In that context, would you agree that anyone seeking AOS via a VWP entry should ideally do this in the 90 day window, thereby limiting the risk of their possible removal?

Rightly or wrongly, my prior understanding was that AOS regulations trumped the VWP regulations - hence the 'forgiven' overstays. However the summation in this case would seemingly dispute that. Rather than conflict, they find concord, with the emphasis being stressed on the question of whether or not the alien submitted an application prior to the expiry of the 90 day window as the important determinate. What are your thoughts on this matter? :)

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Elaine:

I pretty much agree. In my mind, the main point is that there is now another negative published Court case adverse to marriage after VWP. And we know that CIS has some mighty strange ideas about the law at times. I've seen too many examples of CIS adjudicators reading the permissive "you may" as "we must."

Also, I'm not so sure that preserving some modicum of judicial review is a real reason to get that application in before 90 days. Not mentioned in Bayo is that "discretionary" denials are immune from judicial review in any case.

Bottom line: if they want to deny the case, they can figure out a way and there will be nothing that a lawyer can do about it.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

I don't see that there is anything wrong with marriage while having entered under the VWP. The negativity would come from attempting to adjust status while remaining in the US after entry under the VWP.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Concur. In such cases, the danger is at the POE. If person is turned around, then marriage plans will have to change.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Another interesting case: Lee v USCIS. This case does not involve a VWP admission -- Mr. Lee is entitled to a hearing before an Immigration Judge if and when DHS initiates proceedings. It should be noted that Mr. Lee raises a "legal" issue rather than a "discretionary" issue. The court notes the provisions of law that preclude review of AOS applications and then the exception for review of Constitutional or legal errors. So, if a VWP applies for AOS and it goes wrong, at best, there may be a quite limited judical review.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Update out of San Diego (thank you crosscountryrider, for bringing this to attn)

An internal email released July 9, 2010, (I saw it today at one of my interviews but was not allowed to take a copy out) released by the San Diego District Director to all Officers processing adjustments states the following:" To all Adjudicators effective immediately, any immigrants that have entered to the US under the Visa Waiver program and failed to file for adjustment of Status before the expiration of the 90 days authorized stay, MUST BE denied at the time of the interview."

<snip>
Up until last week, where a Visa Waiver entrant marries a U.S. citizen and then files to adjust status based on that marriage before being placed in removal proceedings for having overstayed, USCIS has been open to approving the adjustment of status application. Now, after the recent email and citing Momeni, USCIS in San Diego and in other cities take the position that only adjustment applications filed within the first 90 days of arrival (as in Freeman) are approvable and that if you wait until after the 90 days or if you wait until after you receive a Notice to Appear for Removal before you file your adjustment application, case will be denied.

http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/0...and_marri.html


UPDATE: On Sept 20, Mr Sapochnick posted an update to the above blog entry: http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/0...d_marri_1.html
"I could never imagine that they will follow through with denials of Visa Waiver overstay cases, but our first denial came in on Friday. See below the complete decision."

Included in the post is a pdf of the denial letter his firm received.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

The one thing I have been made aware of, in the US of A, being a criminal... Stolen passport, and then, so connivently married? Goes against what America stands for, honesty in your dealings with anybody, especially the Government.

What this early time of scrutiny tells the powers that be "We don't need you"

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

A good point well made.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

You left out the most important description in the blog:

The USCIS failed to mention this exception in the denial as you can see below.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

The problem as I see it is that this 'exception' is seemingly (based upon the other courts decisions referred to prior in this thread) being accepted by the courts as being of secondary significance. Regardless of what the actual regulations laid down in law are regarding this issue, USCIS have in a number of circuits effectively had their interpretation accepted and secured the decision. Now i don't know about the USA, but in the UK when similar conflicts have occurred visa via the 'law' and 'interpretations', then a Judicial Review (JR) is invariable undertaken to provide clarification. Is there such a process in the USA? If so I would assume that rather than individual lawyers waging appeals in the event of this happening to their clients that there would be more mileage in a collective body seeking the USA equivalent of a JR.

Internal memo's as I understand it are administrative guides to the AO's. They interpret the rules/regulations /law as it is written not as particular offices would like it to be. Thus, until the actual statutes change, such a memo informing AO's to automatically reject any AOS submission made post 90 days from the VWP expiry is imho a flagrant disregard of statute law. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Broadgate v. USCIS is interesting and current. It's an attempt to nullify a USCIS memo through district court -- and it failed!

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

I am consulting on a case arising from San Diego where the alien was a VW from Germany who had made a bona fide asylum claim. DHS claims that his application is "squarely foreclosed" Momeni. They also note a case called Bradley which shows that Momeni is applied nationwide. This argument is made counter to the argument that in a case called Momeni v Ashcroft the following statement was made:

"To [use the visa waiver program], they must waive ‘any right … to contest, other than on the basis of an application for asylum, any action for removal.’ Momeni has not sought asylum from Germany. That basically, is the end of the case."

The alien's argument also notes a case called Bradley which notes that courts nationwide have applied Momeni.

While this case has been pending, this forum brought the blog post to our attention. [Thank you BE].

It is being argued that your contention is correct. An interesting case to read is a recent one from DC District Court called Broadgate v USCIS. The analysis therein supports the challenge.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

But of course nobody with existing plans to marry while on a VWP stay would ever try to adjust their status, as that would be illegal. This would still only apply to those married on the spur of the moment...married with enough time remaining on their VWP stay to file the AOS papers.;)

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Not marry on the spur of the moment, decide to remain in the USA and immigrate on the spur of the moment.

Once again, the marriage part is confusing the real issue. Decisions about marriage and immigration may go hand in hand, but it's the decision to immigrate, not the decision to marry, that is the problem.

VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision/next development
 

All,
please check the attached link . According to this attorney all San Diego

caes are on hold until a principal decision or ruling will be made by the USCIS

headquarter.

I will keep you posted when I find further updates;

http://www.montaglaw.com/blog/2010/1...program-redux/

Kind Regards

CCR

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Thanks so much to CCR for keeping an eye on this topic for us. There are a couple of key thought revealed in the latest blog entry:

http://www.montaglaw.com/blog/2010/1...program-redux/
The San Diego USCIS office has gone on record in an October 19, 2010, meeting with immigration attorneys as holding the position that the former conclusion is the correct one – that overstaying the visa waiver program and then filing for adjustment of status is not available and USCIS lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such an adjustment of status application. The logical result of this decision is that the alien be arrested and deported. Apparently, that is not happening yet. Instead, the San Diego USCIS is holding these cases in abeyance awaiting for a decision from USCIS Headquarters as to whether USCIS can adjudicate these cases.

Should USCIS headquarters conclude aliens who overstay cannot then file for adjustment of status, there will be a lot of deportations of spouses of United States citizens. Many will be barred from returning to the United States for 10 years for two reasons – being deported, INA § 212(a)(9)(A), and for being in the United States unlawfully for more than one year and then departng. INA § 212(a)(9)(B). As for the second reason, astute readers may point out that “unlawful presence” does not accrue if a “properly filed” adjustment of status application is pending. However, if USCIS lacked jurisdiction to consider the application, was it validly filed? This may be a time for aliens who are accruing 180 days or a year of days since their visa waiver program admission expired to leave the country or face a three and ten year bar in addition to the bar because of being deported. Granted, both bars are waivable, but one must consider the bases for the waivers and the time involved in getting the waivers. More hard choices for those who ignored Momeni and its equivalents in other circuits.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

Hi Meauxna,
thanks for your summary and you are worked the details out.

I will never manage this attention to detail :(.

Also I believe that a eventual principle decision from the USCIS headquarters

will be applied to evry office in the United States after it's reviewed by the attorneys to be made " court proof".

This is the only reason I can think about why they are holding those cases.

Kind regards
CCR

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

The heading caught my attention and although I have no plans to marry, I would like to thank you ALL for the heads up on this and, as I am currently in AOS from entering under the VWP, this is of particular interest to me. I did file within the 90 days, although this expires tomorrow. (see my thread on separate matter wrt I-130). I will watch and read this thread with interest. Thanks for the links..... interesting reading and I am doing much research. I note the comment about the emphasis being on the VWP and status rather than marriage, so I am wondering if this thread could be moved to the immgration & visa section. Just a thought. Thanks

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

The issue rarely comes up in situations where marriage to a USC is not the basis for the application to immigrate. There are other situations where it could be relvant, but since marriage is by far the most frequent the thread should remain in this forum.

Perhaps a link to it could be place in the forum you suggest, but I suspect that it will get little traffic.

Regards, JEff

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision/next development
 

Too bad the very first sentence contains this glaring error:
"I have written several times, here, here, and here about the visa waiver program, similar to how most Americans visit other countries - without visas for short stays, and the ability to adjust status — that is, become a United States citizen. "

Regards, JEff

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

You are also an Immediate Relative, which is why you were allowed to file I-485 while here on the VWP (IRs= spouse, parent, child under 21).

"Spouse" is far and away the most popular subcategory for this type of filing. Most people plan their immigration, but love n' marriage apparently has its own schedule.

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

If Mr Folinsky reads this, I'd sure appreciate a comment on it.

I guess it's only illegal "planning ahead to defraud" or whatever it was that used to be said about Alvena, when a non-attorney tells you these things.

http://www.aila.org/content/fileview...&linkid=224523

sigh. I give up.
(lol, for today only!)

Re: VWP Entry and Adjustment of Status: New Decision
 

He'll probably start foaming.....it's got the FAM 30/60 day rule in there!

"Foreign nationals should be counseled, whenever possible, not to engage in a rapid sequence of events that would lead one to the conclusion that they have been seeking to immigrate to the United States all along."

If you're doing the express route folks, marry after 60 days and file before 90 days.