Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
Dec 1st 2003, 3:20 am
#46
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
Rete -
Sorry, I didn't intentionally wander into THAT quagmire. The point I actually wanted to make revolved around the pre-conceived INTENT. I understand your unwillingness to discuss the AoS matter.
The following was what I was talking about when I referred to the mis-quote:
I made no judgments about the validity of the marriage. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Again, thanks for your input.
Richard III
Sorry, I didn't intentionally wander into THAT quagmire. The point I actually wanted to make revolved around the pre-conceived INTENT. I understand your unwillingness to discuss the AoS matter.
The following was what I was talking about when I referred to the mis-quote:
Also the fact that she did not marry "immediately" but that the relationship developed over a long period of time before it culminated in marriage would do much to negate any suppositions made on your part as to the validity of the relationship.
Again, thanks for your input.
Richard III
Originally posted by Rete
Sorry I don't see a misquote. I knew your storyline was fiction and if my response led you to believe that I thought otherwise, my apologies. In your case scenario be it real or fiction the alien showed no behavior that would warrant either the USCIS to question her intent.
Perhaps you might want to make up another storyline where the alien would not have an opportunity to adjust status based on the visa they used to enter the US with. It would allow one, even an attorney, to play with the scenario a bit more and lay out possible "what ifs".
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you want to discuss an area which has been teemed off limits as per the ten foot pole argument. If such is the case, I will respectivefully bow out of any and all discussions regarding that aspect of immigration law. I have formulated my own thoughts and beliefs on the subject and they are and will remain private.
Have fun with your thread. Hope you gain the knowledge you are looking for.
Rete
Sorry I don't see a misquote. I knew your storyline was fiction and if my response led you to believe that I thought otherwise, my apologies. In your case scenario be it real or fiction the alien showed no behavior that would warrant either the USCIS to question her intent.
Perhaps you might want to make up another storyline where the alien would not have an opportunity to adjust status based on the visa they used to enter the US with. It would allow one, even an attorney, to play with the scenario a bit more and lay out possible "what ifs".
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you want to discuss an area which has been teemed off limits as per the ten foot pole argument. If such is the case, I will respectivefully bow out of any and all discussions regarding that aspect of immigration law. I have formulated my own thoughts and beliefs on the subject and they are and will remain private.
Have fun with your thread. Hope you gain the knowledge you are looking for.
Rete
Dec 1st 2003, 3:21 am
#47
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
JEff -
Thanks, I'll look it up.
Richard III
Thanks, I'll look it up.
Richard III
Originally posted by jeffreyhy
Richard,
Try looking throught the FAM - Foreign Affairs Manual. You should be able to find it pretty quickly with the 'search' function on either the DOS or USCIS web site.
Regards, JEff
Richard,
Try looking throught the FAM - Foreign Affairs Manual. You should be able to find it pretty quickly with the 'search' function on either the DOS or USCIS web site.
Regards, JEff
Dec 1st 2003, 3:25 am
#48
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
Mrt -
That clears it up, doesn't it? The fact that he went back to Italy and waited for the I-130/I-129F/K-3 to be adjudicated makes his original intent irrelevant. Sharp shootin' there. Thanks for your insight.
Richard III
That clears it up, doesn't it? The fact that he went back to Italy and waited for the I-130/I-129F/K-3 to be adjudicated makes his original intent irrelevant. Sharp shootin' there. Thanks for your insight.
Richard III
Originally posted by Mrt
Richard III wrote:
> Mrt
> Ah, good questions. Let's say that the answers are as follows:
> 1. For having the pre-conceived intent to immigrate.
>
Where does it say that??
You only indicated he came to the US and intended to find an American
girl......... If he is getting a K-3, then this would indicate that he
did NOT intend to immigrate on the tourist visa.
> 4. This is the crux of the problem, isn't it? How COULD immigration
> officials PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt
It won't matter. If he comes in on a tourist visa and LEAVES to wait for
K-3, then he did not immigrate on the tourist visa.
Richard III wrote:
> Mrt
> Ah, good questions. Let's say that the answers are as follows:
> 1. For having the pre-conceived intent to immigrate.
>
Where does it say that??
You only indicated he came to the US and intended to find an American
girl......... If he is getting a K-3, then this would indicate that he
did NOT intend to immigrate on the tourist visa.
> 4. This is the crux of the problem, isn't it? How COULD immigration
> officials PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt
It won't matter. If he comes in on a tourist visa and LEAVES to wait for
K-3, then he did not immigrate on the tourist visa.
Dec 1st 2003, 3:27 am
#49
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
Mrt -
You are CORRECT Sir! -
Richard III
You are CORRECT Sir! -
Richard III
Originally posted by Mrt
Richard III wrote:
> Rete -
>
>
>
> Thank you for your informed, if not legal, opinion. Yes, the point is
> proof of intent, isn't it?
His intent might matter if he tried to AOS from the tourist visa... BUT
you indicated he was getting a K-3. He didn't immigrate with the B-2.
He is immigrating after getting a K-3, correct?
Richard III wrote:
> Rete -
>
>
>
> Thank you for your informed, if not legal, opinion. Yes, the point is
> proof of intent, isn't it?
His intent might matter if he tried to AOS from the tourist visa... BUT
you indicated he was getting a K-3. He didn't immigrate with the B-2.
He is immigrating after getting a K-3, correct?
Dec 1st 2003, 3:43 am
#50
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
Folinskyinla -
You've made my point. Thanks, I appreciate your time invested in this (sort of) academic exercise. I found it VERY informative, I hope others have as well.
Richard III
You've made my point. Thanks, I appreciate your time invested in this (sort of) academic exercise. I found it VERY informative, I hope others have as well.
Richard III
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
It has long been inherent in the system that ConOffs are omnipotent. Remember that ConOffs got their jobs long before the advent of world-wide instant communications. So the law has given them broad powers.
However, the homeland security legislation has now lessened this power somewhat -- the new DHS is allowed to place zampolits in consulates with the power of vetoing visa issuance.
Other than this new limitation, the consuls' power under the law is unlimited. Lets say a ConOff denys a visa and gets a cable with the command "Grant the visa. Signed Colin" -- the conoff would be will within her power to say no. Lets say a second cable comes in with the command "Grant the visa. Signed George W." The consular officer would still be within her rights to deny the visa. [Her career might be shot -- but she can't be compelled to issue that visa].
Also, never ever forget that the presumption is that a visa is to be DENIED. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Hi:
It has long been inherent in the system that ConOffs are omnipotent. Remember that ConOffs got their jobs long before the advent of world-wide instant communications. So the law has given them broad powers.
However, the homeland security legislation has now lessened this power somewhat -- the new DHS is allowed to place zampolits in consulates with the power of vetoing visa issuance.
Other than this new limitation, the consuls' power under the law is unlimited. Lets say a ConOff denys a visa and gets a cable with the command "Grant the visa. Signed Colin" -- the conoff would be will within her power to say no. Lets say a second cable comes in with the command "Grant the visa. Signed George W." The consular officer would still be within her rights to deny the visa. [Her career might be shot -- but she can't be compelled to issue that visa].
Also, never ever forget that the presumption is that a visa is to be DENIED. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Dec 1st 2003, 3:45 am
#51
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
sibsie -
The message is crystal clear, isn't it?
Richard III
The message is crystal clear, isn't it?
Richard III
Originally posted by sibsie
Thanks again. You always explain things so succinctly that even my novice mind gets it.
Thanks again. You always explain things so succinctly that even my novice mind gets it.
Dec 1st 2003, 6:19 am
#52
C.G.D.S
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Ireland--->London--->Spain--->Rockport, MA
Posts: 3,353
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
It has long been inherent in the system that ConOffs are omnipotent. Remember that ConOffs got their jobs long before the advent of world-wide instant communications. So the law has given them broad powers.
However, the homeland security legislation has now lessened this power somewhat -- the new DHS is allowed to place zampolits in consulates with the power of vetoing visa issuance.
Other than this new limitation, the consuls' power under the law is unlimited. Lets say a ConOff denys a visa and gets a cable with the command "Grant the visa. Signed Colin" -- the conoff would be will within her power to say no. Lets say a second cable comes in with the command "Grant the visa. Signed George W." The consular officer would still be within her rights to deny the visa. [Her career might be shot -- but she can't be compelled to issue that visa].
Also, never ever forget that the presumption is that a visa is to be DENIED. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Hi:
It has long been inherent in the system that ConOffs are omnipotent. Remember that ConOffs got their jobs long before the advent of world-wide instant communications. So the law has given them broad powers.
However, the homeland security legislation has now lessened this power somewhat -- the new DHS is allowed to place zampolits in consulates with the power of vetoing visa issuance.
Other than this new limitation, the consuls' power under the law is unlimited. Lets say a ConOff denys a visa and gets a cable with the command "Grant the visa. Signed Colin" -- the conoff would be will within her power to say no. Lets say a second cable comes in with the command "Grant the visa. Signed George W." The consular officer would still be within her rights to deny the visa. [Her career might be shot -- but she can't be compelled to issue that visa].
Also, never ever forget that the presumption is that a visa is to be DENIED. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Thanks.
Dec 1st 2003, 10:29 am
#53
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
Originally posted by Richard III
Folinskyinla -
You've made my point. Thanks, I appreciate your time invested in this (sort of) academic exercise. I found it VERY informative, I hope others have as well.
Richard III
Folinskyinla -
You've made my point. Thanks, I appreciate your time invested in this (sort of) academic exercise. I found it VERY informative, I hope others have as well.
Richard III
I did NOT participate in YOUR string in any substantive way in regards to your "hypothetical" question other than to respond to a point raised by Sisbie.
Although that point was tangental to YOUR hypothetical, the issue of consular power and reviewabiltiy happens to be a quite basic principle that most people don't understand -- and that explains a lot on how the immigration system works.
Also, I served some time ago a three year stint on the California Bar Commission that is directly involved in the process of certifying immigration legal specialists. I got to take part in drafting two of the examinations -- there were eight of us on the commission and the process consisted of all 8 figuring out what areas were to be tested in each question, then having one of us draft the "hypothetical" and then all of us would meet [we kept Southwest Airlines busy] to chop it to pieces.
Writing "hypothetical" questions is not an easy task -- they tend to lose focus and wander off on tangents and the point of the question tends to get lost.
My point is that drawing up such questions is an art form and a difficult one.
Your question really wasn't capable of being answered. I followed this string, but I made no substantive answer to your question.
Dec 1st 2003, 1:19 pm
#54
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
Folinskyinla -
Nevertheless, you made a valuable contribution. I recognize that my simplistic SUPPOZ's were impossible to answer DEFINITIVELY. That was NEVER the point. I was merely interested in stimulating dialog on scenarios where INTENT was the core issue. I learned a great deal from it and I believe there might have been others who learned from it and enjoyed it. This is clearly a complex subject and understanding of it does not come easy.
To all of you who contributed, you know who you are, I thank you very much, it was one of the most interesting, stimulating, thought provoking and useful threads I have read anywhere in the past 15 months, tangental meanderings included.
Let's do it again sometime - with a slightly different topic.
Richard III
Nevertheless, you made a valuable contribution. I recognize that my simplistic SUPPOZ's were impossible to answer DEFINITIVELY. That was NEVER the point. I was merely interested in stimulating dialog on scenarios where INTENT was the core issue. I learned a great deal from it and I believe there might have been others who learned from it and enjoyed it. This is clearly a complex subject and understanding of it does not come easy.
To all of you who contributed, you know who you are, I thank you very much, it was one of the most interesting, stimulating, thought provoking and useful threads I have read anywhere in the past 15 months, tangental meanderings included.
Let's do it again sometime - with a slightly different topic.
Richard III
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Richard:
I did NOT participate in YOUR string in any substantive way in regards to your "hypothetical" question other than to respond to a point raised by Sisbie.
Although that point was tangental to YOUR hypothetical, the issue of consular power and reviewabiltiy happens to be a quite basic principle that most people don't understand -- and that explains a lot on how the immigration system works.
Also, I served some time ago a three year stint on the California Bar Commission that is directly involved in the process of certifying immigration legal specialists. I got to take part in drafting two of the examinations -- there were eight of us on the commission and the process consisted of all 8 figuring out what areas were to be tested in each question, then having one of us draft the "hypothetical" and then all of us would meet [we kept Southwest Airlines busy] to chop it to pieces.
Writing "hypothetical" questions is not an easy task -- they tend to lose focus and wander off on tangents and the point of the question tends to get lost.
My point is that drawing up such questions is an art form and a difficult one.
Your question really wasn't capable of being answered. I followed this string, but I made no substantive answer to your question.
Richard:
I did NOT participate in YOUR string in any substantive way in regards to your "hypothetical" question other than to respond to a point raised by Sisbie.
Although that point was tangental to YOUR hypothetical, the issue of consular power and reviewabiltiy happens to be a quite basic principle that most people don't understand -- and that explains a lot on how the immigration system works.
Also, I served some time ago a three year stint on the California Bar Commission that is directly involved in the process of certifying immigration legal specialists. I got to take part in drafting two of the examinations -- there were eight of us on the commission and the process consisted of all 8 figuring out what areas were to be tested in each question, then having one of us draft the "hypothetical" and then all of us would meet [we kept Southwest Airlines busy] to chop it to pieces.
Writing "hypothetical" questions is not an easy task -- they tend to lose focus and wander off on tangents and the point of the question tends to get lost.
My point is that drawing up such questions is an art form and a difficult one.
Your question really wasn't capable of being answered. I followed this string, but I made no substantive answer to your question.
Dec 1st 2003, 10:58 pm
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
In article <[email protected]>,
sibsie <member17406@british_expats.com> wrote:
>Originally posted by Folinskyinla
>Also, never ever forget that the presumption is that a visa is to be
>DENIED. You are guilty until proven innocent.
>Thanks again. You always explain things so succinctly that even my novice
>mind gets it.
Think of it this way.
US customs officers are told to assume:
1. The US is the #1 place in the world to live.
2. It's at least 1 million times better than #2.
3. EVERYONE who is not INSANE wants to live in the US. Period.
4. EVERYONE who visits the US would love to immigrate instead.
5. If we let everyone in, you'll be out of a job.
:-)
Mattias
sibsie <member17406@british_expats.com> wrote:
>Originally posted by Folinskyinla
>Also, never ever forget that the presumption is that a visa is to be
>DENIED. You are guilty until proven innocent.
>Thanks again. You always explain things so succinctly that even my novice
>mind gets it.
Think of it this way.
US customs officers are told to assume:
1. The US is the #1 place in the world to live.
2. It's at least 1 million times better than #2.
3. EVERYONE who is not INSANE wants to live in the US. Period.
4. EVERYONE who visits the US would love to immigrate instead.
5. If we let everyone in, you'll be out of a job.
:-)
Mattias
Dec 1st 2003, 11:34 pm
#56
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Hypothetically, is this behavior illegal?
Mattias -
I take your point. There certainly is a certain amount of hubris involved.
Richard III
I take your point. There certainly is a certain amount of hubris involved.
Richard III
Originally posted by Mattias Hembruch
In article <[email protected]>,
sibsie <member17406@british_expats.com> wrote:
>Originally posted by Folinskyinla
>Also, never ever forget that the presumption is that a visa is to be
>DENIED. You are guilty until proven innocent.
>Thanks again. You always explain things so succinctly that even my novice
>mind gets it.
Think of it this way.
US customs officers are told to assume:
1. The US is the #1 place in the world to live.
2. It's at least 1 million times better than #2.
3. EVERYONE who is not INSANE wants to live in the US. Period.
4. EVERYONE who visits the US would love to immigrate instead.
5. If we let everyone in, you'll be out of a job.
:-)
Mattias
In article <[email protected]>,
sibsie <member17406@british_expats.com> wrote:
>Originally posted by Folinskyinla
>Also, never ever forget that the presumption is that a visa is to be
>DENIED. You are guilty until proven innocent.
>Thanks again. You always explain things so succinctly that even my novice
>mind gets it.
Think of it this way.
US customs officers are told to assume:
1. The US is the #1 place in the world to live.
2. It's at least 1 million times better than #2.
3. EVERYONE who is not INSANE wants to live in the US. Period.
4. EVERYONE who visits the US would love to immigrate instead.
5. If we let everyone in, you'll be out of a job.
:-)
Mattias
