Stina

I'm very lucky in having a husband who is prepared and willing to move to the UK with me should the issue arise.

I was mainly trying to say that yes those risks are there and we should talk about them to people who ask (as well as the possible advantages) rather than just saying "It's an AOS from VWP, talk to an immigration attorney".

There IS a prevailing feeling that people who come on the VWP and marry spontaneously are trying to do something dodgy, even if they're not. It's very hard to get a straight answer about it - as I found when I tried. By not providing a straight answer, you're not "not encouraging", but almost discouraging. Not discussing it at all runs the risk that people will not be aware of the potential pitfalls, in my mind.

I understand the forum has a policy of dealing in this way (which I will grudgingly accept), but I think it's a shame not to help people by simply providing the answers to their questions regardless of personal feelings.

Not trying to stir the pot here, just putting my opinion out there for the wolves of BritishExpats!

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The reason this is called the "10-foot pole" is that such discussions in a public forum can be construed as a planning tool to LATER come in on the VWT and then "change our mind".

I feel much more comfortable with a couple sitting in my office than talking about this in a public forum. And when one considers the laws against conspiracy, being "dodgy" on a public forum is really a prudent course.

My feeling is that if you are in love, you are interested in doing it right and legal. Doing it quick and the law be damned can bite one on the ass -- hard and many years later.

fatbrit

This post, especially the penultimate sentence, suggests to the reader that you consider entering on a VWP and adjusting status to be illegal!

Folinskyinla

Hi:

It really doesn't matter what **I** think -- I am not a consular officer, DHS employee, immigration judge, other employee of the Department of Justice, Prosecutor or a Federal Judge.

What THEY think IS important. I only have the power of persuasion inherent in giving educated advice. THEY can ruin your day.

The foregoing conclusion is drawn from long experience and observation.

As I said, this is a "10-foot pole" issue for me. I would just like to serve fair warning -- that is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

fatbrit

Pretty sure there's an oxymoron in your second sentence, but I'll go along with it!

Can you post case law showing successful prosecutions for this particular conspiracy. I'd be interested in reading about them.

Just Jenney

Mr Folinsky summed up the issue very well: This is a public forum, so when someone asks a question about adjusting from the VWP, everyone with access to this forum (ie, everyone on the internet) can read the answers, not just the person asking the question. While there are couples out there who adjust from the VWP legally, there are many who are looking to do whatever they can to get here as quickly as possible, even if that means breaking the law. So while one person may be asking the question, there could be dozens of others who are reading the answers and applying them to their own situations, whether it applies or not.

As for learning about the potential pitfalls, that's where an immigration attorney comes in. This is not the only place to obtain advice, after all. It will also ensure that the person is getting CORRECT advice, because the information on this forum is NOT always correct. And since those who adjust from the VWP do so having waived their right to appeal any decisions, this is not a path to take lightly and rely on the comments of perfect strangers who are not legal experts and do not know all the facts of that person's case.

Case in point: Iniaki told Lavender point blank, "[If you are married to a USC,] then yes, you can apply for AOS and remain in the US. You will not have to apply for a K-1, that is a fiancee visa. BTW, you do not need an immigration attorney to adjust from a vwp."

Now, no doubt Iniaki meant no harm by saying that, but what dangerous advice to give! Aside from not knowing nearly enough information to give such absolute advice, moreover Iniaki was not thinking of all the other people reading that response who are now thinking, "Cool -- all I have to do is enter on the VWP, get married and then adjust, get my green card and live happily ever after. No need to go through all this K1 visa crap; what a waste of money and time!"

As it turns out, Lavender was not eligible to use the VWP to begin with, so who knows how that could affect her should she choose to adjust while here. A qualfied attorney would know, but most people on this forum certainly wouldn't, or at least not enough to feel comfortable giving advice on it.

~ Jenney

fatbrit

We are still awaiting our case law on this particular one. I'm yet to be fully convinced.

And the same could be said about virtually all the questions on this board. Are you arguing for cessation of the board or that every answer should be prefixed with a disclaimer? And why o' why does this always happen for this particular question but is for the large part ignored for all other visas, even thought there is often an equally valid argument. Spite fuelled with priestly smoke would be my assertion.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I am not taking the time to look up case law. Also, much of what consists of immigration law is NOT in the published cases.

In general, it is quite possible for legal effects never to be litigated. BTW, one of the big procedural issues in Roe v Wade dealt with the concept of a repeating situation yet evading review. I also recall a veteran's benefit case which involved an administrative interpretation that had generated no legal challenges for over 50 years. The first published review said the 50 years of practice was wrong.

Stina

I understand the "ten foot pole" issue and also the danger of ANY blanket statements, but as FatBrit said, the AOS from VWP question does seem to garner a very particular response, which is what I'm trying to understand.

I'm really not trying to stir controversy, just to see why this response is so common for this issue.

fatbrit

Readers, I'm sure, will draw their own conclusions.

meauxna

This wasn't my first answer but maybe the answer to your question is:

Because it's easier than playing 20-questions with every person who comes along asking it. 10 minutes of search would give them a day's worth of reading on the topic.

I don't even see why everyone has to agree on what the answer should be. If FB or you feel like answering VWP AOS questions with a more positive spin, go for it If someone disagrees, or sees an error/ommission or sees that it requires further questioning, and they feel strongly enough, let them chime in.

I resent the tarring the group with one brush; I don't think that recommending a consultation *in private* is exactly having the wolves at your throat on the topic.
pax,
mo

ian-mstm

Hey... even I agree with this!

While my own views dealing with VW adjustment is well known in this forum, I'm sure that the people who take this route are usually law abiding folks who wouldn't normally snub their nose at the US. While the US government may allow such adjustment, I don't think any visitor should so blatantly disregard that to which they specifically agreed - leaving when their 90-day VW expires. This, IMHO, does not demonstrate honesty or integrity... and is predicated mostly on their overactive hormones.

It is this blatant disregard, this refusal to comply with their own signed statement that really burns me! If a person is able to completely negate that which was given in good faith, what else might that person do to receive immigration benefits? At that point, their credibility is pretty much shot, don't you think?

Ian

candy wy.

no.

Stina

Ian, if you don't mind me asking, are you in the US or the UK, and if you're in the US what kind of visa did you come on? I'm just interested, and wondered if it has any bearing on your feelings about the whole issue.

I obviously have very different views on the whole VWP issue than you because I'm in the middle of actually doing it! My husband and I researched extensively before getting married, and the only advice we could get was to file for K1 and for me to return to the UK to do that. It was going to cause me a lot of problems as I was working on cruiseships at the time and as such had very little to go back to in the UK and with the exchange rate being what it is, very little money with which to do so. When I came to stay with him it was between contracts, we were not engaged and I was fully intending to return to the ocean, but it didn't work like that. So we actually FILED for K1, and then made an infopass appointment to see if my I-94 could be extended until the time when I would have to interview in London. The local immigration officer actually advised us to withdraw the K1, marry and file for AOS, or we never would have done so.

I don't see how that can be classed as a betrayal of my I-94 contract, and in the same way that it's not fair for me to say "everyone in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD thinks AOS from VWP is evil!", it's not fair for you (or anyone else) to say that everyone who does file for AOS instantly has no credibility. IMO, people who overstay their I-94 and then marry with the sole purpose of remaining are doing something far worse than those who simply realise that they love someone and want to spend their life with them.

Hubby and I are also very aware that there are potential holes and pitfalls in AOS from VWP, and as I said above I'm very lucky in that he is prepared to come to the UK with me if needs be. We married to be together, not so that I could live in the US.

As Meauxna says, we don't all have to agree on it though!

fatbrit

As Candy said.