Rete

Actually I've yet to see anyone "have" to prove anything. None of those that have come as visitors, married and stayed to file for AOS have reported that at the AOS they were asked to prove their intentions at the POE. While I fully agree this should NOT be attempted if you had pre-conceived intent because if the DOA is suspicious of your intentions and wanted to be a prick, they could certainly through "discovery" find what your intentions were.


And if they can't meet the income requirements, they get a co-sponsor. Not quite the end of the world in terms of AOS.

Fully agree with your second paragraph. Too many fall in love with the fantasy and 10 minutes of fame that this type of romance invokes and find themselves married to strangers who they discover they don't want to wake up to in the morning.

Rete

Rete

No it is not. It is 180 days from the 91st day of your stay on the VWP.

If you are here on a six month tourist visa and your I-94 reflects a date, then the overstay starts from the day after the date on your I-94.

Rete

Ray

Thats what make it all so unfair...the next person at that post most likely would just be turned away.....Makes me wonder if recommending the correct way K-1 etc...is really the best thing to say..with all the stress of being apart...

Rete

I know. And I have the emails between Caroline and I urging her NOT to do this because the risk was too great. But Wade wanted to get out of NS (it was winter and he was a construction worker so off from work for the season), they wanted to get married and they didn't want to wait. Caroline called the Boston office got that advise and followed it.

I've learned over the years while I might not have urged the K-1 in the beginning, I always do now to anyone that places an inquiry and they have the option to do a K-1 rather than posting that they are here and already married. My reasons for doing this are private. And for anyone who emails me with the possibility of doing this marriage/AOS stateside, I tell them to ask questions in the newsgroup. I won't respond privately.

Rete

Hypertweeky

Opps!! sorry mea culpa!!

tortoise

yes, that's what i thought - thanks for confirming it :)

i'm still buggered... but it's good for others to know

Mtravelkay

ray6 wrote:

    > Originally posted by Susanna
    >
    >>Am I reading between the
    >
    > lines here?
    >
    >>What do you meen please when you say that you can applie
    >
    > for AP 180days before visa expires???? a tourist visa is
    > 90days so how would you file 180days before?
    >
    >>
    >
    >
    > Read it again..it does not say "before'" it says within 90
    > days of expiring..
    >

Actually it doesn't say within 90, it says "within 180 days"

Mtravelkay

tortoise wrote:

    > Originally posted by Susanna
    >
    >>Am I reading between the
    >
    > lines here?
    >
    >>What do you meen please when you say that you can applie
    >
    > for AP 180days before visa expires???? a tourist visa is
    > 90days so how would you file 180days before?
    >
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    > i was told that you have to apply for your advance parole
    > within the 180 day period after your visa expires.
    >
    > edit: now, i'm not
    > sure whether the 90 day visa is included in the 180 days. that's
    > something to check out for sure.

It would be 180 days of overstay. The original time granted at entry
isn't, by definition, "overstay". It should also be noted the the VWP is
good for UP TO 90 days, which can be substantially less and should be
noted on the I-94W.

Harold

mtravelkay <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > Harold wrote:
    > > It is said that there is a 30/60 day rule. That is, if you marry
    > > within 30 days of entry, you intended to marry. If you marry beyound
    > > 60 days after entry you did not intend it. In between is investigated.
    > >
    >
    > There is no 30/60 rule.

Then ignore this part of the Foreign Affairs Manual:

http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0940063N.pdf

9 FAM 40.63 N4.7-1 Applying 30/60 Day Rule When Alien Violates Status
(TL:VISA-313; 08-27-2001)
a. The consular officer should apply the 30/60-day rule if an alien
states on his or her application for a B-2 visa, or informs an immigration officer
at the port of entry, that the purpose of his or her visit is tourism, or to
visit relatives, etc., and then violates such status by:
(1) Actively seeking unauthorized employment and, subsequently, becomes
engaged in such employment;
(2) Enrolling in a program of academic study without the benefit of the
appropriate change of status;
(3) Marrying and takes up permanent residence, or
(4) Undertakes any other activity for which a change of status or an adjustment
of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change
or adjustment.

Harold

Looks pretty clear to me:

http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0940063N.pdf

9 FAM 40.63 N4.7-1 Applying 30/60 Day Rule When Alien Violates Status
(TL:VISA-313; 08-27-2001)
a. The consular officer should apply the 30/60-day rule if an alien
states on his or her application for a B-2 visa, or informs an immigration officer
at the port of entry, that the purpose of his or her visit is tourism, or to
visit relatives, etc., and then violates such status by:
(1) Actively seeking unauthorized employment and, subsequently, becomes
engaged in such employment;
(2) Enrolling in a program of academic study without the benefit of the
appropriate change of status;
(3) Marrying and takes up permanent residence, or
(4) Undertakes any other activity for which a change of status or an adjustment
of status would be required, without the benefit of such a change
or adjustment.


"AlphaTrion-TJW" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Ughh..the urban myth that would not die.
    >
    > Look you could marry 1 day after you get here or you can marry 2 years from
    > then it don't matter. There is no magic number of days where they say
    > "intent or no intent" What they look at is intent. Nothing more, nothing
    > less. People do screwball thing when it comes to love and marriage and the
    > INS. That's why you won't find any BS about how long you have to be in the
    > states before you can marry without suspicion (sp) case there is no such
    > standard. Me and my wife marry 3 days after her arrival (no Visa, no intent
    > to stay) anre we're subject to the same level of scurtiny (sp) as someone
    > who married 90 days letter with the same intent and no visa. It's up to us
    > and anyone who petitions to prove that our original intentions were in good
    > faith and that thing changed after the fact.

Matthew Udall

Harold, this is the same mistake that Paul (when he found the FAM and jumped to the same incorrect conclusion) and Alvena (when she propagated Paul's incorrect information on her site, even though she had been told otherwise) made. Notice this appears in the "Foreign Affairs Manual" which is a guideline or instructions for U.S. Consulates. Also notice that it starts with, "The Consular officer should apply....".

This is not something applied by a USCIS officer at an adjustment of status interview.

Folinskyinla

Jeez:

We've been over this a million times before. This is a STATE DEPARTMENT rule for whether or not an advisory opinion is required to support a fraud or misrepresentation finding. Also, a point often missed -- you need an a REPRESENTATION to find a MISrepresentation.

This PROCEDURAL rule is often misunderstood and quite often misapplied.

It may be "clear" to you -- in the sense of invisible, perhaps?

Rete

And therein lies the problem. Most people do not know or understand, perhaps, that the US Consulate is not USCIS and the rules and regulations differ from the USCIS to the US Consulate.

Rete

Matthew Udall

That is but one of the dangers of people playing attorney on this news group..... who do so because "they can" (they own a computer and have internet access).

CalgaryAMC

This is a newsgroup, where amateurs from around the world come and discuss something of common interest.

Anyone taking anything written on an internet newsgroup as gospel truth should have "mental defect" checked off on their I-693.