Amungur

Hey guys,

I need some help on my situation here.

I am here on a Visitor/b2/tourist visa, and i am gonna get married next
month. Here is my situation and let me know if you think this will be
suspicious in the eyes of the law.

- I came here last december to visit. I use to be a student in the us 3
years ago.
- Met someone last december. Went back home in Jan
- After spending time online with her for the past 3 month i decided to
come visit again last month.
- And after a month, we are going to get married in Vegas next month
- I am in Dallas and i will go thru the DORA program.

Now, do you guys think i will have a problem with the AOS? What's
bothering me is the fact that I was in the US in December and came back
after such a short time.

Also for those who were in my situation, did the fact that you were on a
tourist visa come up in the AOS interview?


THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR REPLIES

--
Posted via http://expatforums.com

hcj1440

Maybe. It's certainly possible.

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Let us know what happens. I, for one, am curious.

Stina

Ok.

I'm a tourist adjuster. When people who are genuine spur-of-the-moment, change-in-circumstances adjusters post they get all kinds of hassle for being visitors going through the AOS. We get that hassle because of people like you who blatantly flout the system and make grey areas out of black and white laws and give everyone a bad name. It's quite simple - if you had immigrant intent on entry, you are not allowed to adjust from tourist status. There's nothing complicated about that.

The burden of proof falls on you. I trust that you have something damn good to support your lies, and to be honest I rather hope that you don't. People like you are what makes it difficult for any tourist adjuster to get informed advice and respect.

Damn, it pees me off EVERY DAMN TIME someone does this.

[/rant]

Folinskyinla

Hi:

It is NOT "simple" -- however, it IS not a smart move to enter with intent of marrying. The cost of screwing it up can be high indeed.

Stina

Mr F:

Entering on a nonimmigrant visa with preconceived intent to immigrate is deemed as visa fraud, correct? Or perhaps "material misrepresentation" is the correct term - I'm not a lawyer

http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/t...usPleasure.htm
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/in...ties_1364.html


Either way, call it visa fraud or material misrepresentation and it's a bar against adjusting status, right?

Of course, when the OP added the "wink wink" factor somewhere else, I may have been priviledge to more info than originally released here.

Mrtravel

Folinskyinla wrote:
    >>Ok.
    >>I'm a tourist adjuster. When people who are genuine spur-of-the-
    >>moment, change-in-circumstances adjusters post they get all kinds of
    >>hassle for being visitors going through the AOS. We get that hassle
    >>because of people like you who blatantly flout the system and make
    >>grey areas out of black and white laws and give everyone a bad name.
    >>It's quite simple - if you had immigrant intent on entry, you are not
    >>allowed to adjust from tourist status. There's nothing complicated
    >>about that.
    >>The burden of proof falls on you. I trust that you have something damn
    >>good to support your lies, and to be honest I rather hope that you
    >>don't. People like you are what makes it difficult for any tourist
    >>adjuster to get informed advice and respect.
    >>Damn, it pees me off EVERY DAMN TIME someone does this.
    >>[/rant]
    >
    >
    > Hi:
    >
    > It is NOT "simple" -- however, it IS not a smart move to enter with
    > intent of marrying. The cost of screwing it up can be high indeed.
    >

It doens't matter that much. After all, if they have been here for a
couple of years or more already, they can simply wait for the next
immigration legislation to go through. That should be any day now.
So, the Bush Administrations says screw everyone that's been waiting for
legitimate entry.

Stina

For the benefit of Usenet users, there was an edit which adds a little context:

Folinskyinla

Hi:

Even lawyers exhibit problems in understanding these issues. "Fraud" is a "term of art" in the law. However, as you seem to be aware, the term "material misrepresentation" is in the Immigration & Nationality Act is sufficient to invoke inadmissability even absent some of the elements for the misrepresenation to constitute "fraud."

That said, there must be a "representation" in the first place, it must be false [e.g. the mis-], "wilful," "material" and for the purpose of obtaining a benefit [e.g. "admission"].

An interesting case is the "Bronston" perjury case from the Supreme Court.

Stina

So deliberately representing oneself at the POE as having no immigrant intent when you do for the purpose of obtaining entry to the US would be covered by that, but that's where the burden of proof and ten-foot-pole issues come into it.

Just checking I understand

I will check out that case, and see if I can make any sense of the legalese!

DCMark

Where is this evidence of fraud you see in his post?

Folinskyinla

Hi:

The "ten-foot pole" arises in avoiding giving advice on how to break the law -- I am not going to do that.

In Bronston, the defendant dodged a question by giving what we legal types call a "non-responsive" answer at a depostion under oath. Rather than answering the question asked, he stated something else. And the questioning lawyer didn't follow up. Bronston's statement was true, but was misleading. His perjury conviction was reversed.

I had a case once where the alien walked through the US CITIZEN line at San Ysidro. She spoke a perfect almost accent free English. She was asked one question: "U.S.?" to which she responded "Yes." BTW, CIS did not claim "misrepresentation" but rather "false claim to citizenship" -- and there is no waiver for that. Case was granted by the Immigration Judge.

Stina

The OP has not just posted this in this forum, and the more he happens to comment on it, the bigger the hole he has dug.

hcj1440

It was over on VJ. OP admitted to having the intent to immigrate on/prior to entry on a visitor's visa. Wink-wink nudge-nudge kinda thing.

Trinity

My husband and I married on visa waiver. He was in the US for three months, gone only six weeks, and returned. We were never asked about it in our interview. Be aware that you are asking questions on a forum that does NOT take kindly to anyone doing things the way you have done them. Read what people tell you but keep in mind every case is different, every interview different, so you could have unforeseen obstacles and get an interviewer having a really bad day and get grilled.

I wish you all the best! Congratulations and good luck!