Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
Oct 1st 2003, 6:48 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
I am a USC residing in the US. My Aussie girlfriend is in the US on a
1-year B-2 visitor visa, with a 6-month entry stamp ending on 28 Dec.
We want to get married, but would rather *time* it for
emotional/family reasons rather than for legal reasons. Because of
that, we would like her to be able to stay legally past the expiration
of the entry stamp.
Her divorce became final while she was here, and her house in Aussie
was sold as part of the division of marital assets. There are
serious reasons, other than the usual romantic separation angst,
making it very undesirable for her to have to go back to Aussie and
wait for a marriage visa.
Our options seem to be:
(1) Ask for an extension of her current stay on the visitor visa. I
understand that this is very unlikely to be granted, but she would
like to try anyway.
(2) Marry here before the expiration of her entry stamp. It was not
the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I understand that
the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has already been
more than 90 days. My understanding is that if we get married before
her entry expires that she will remain in legal status here past 28
December while the paperwork is being processed by the BCIS.
(3) Have her remain past the expiration of the entry, and get married
later after she becomes "illegal".
I believe that option (2) is really the safest and is what we should
probably do despite the emotional/family reasons, but here are some
questions please:
(1) What form do we file in order to at least try for the extension to
her current stay? When should we file it? How long would it take to
get an answer?
(2) Does the "get married here before expiration" option seem viable?
How long would it be before she could travel outside the US again (to
visit relatives in Aussie)?
(3) Does the "get married after expiration" option seem viable? Are
there increased risks over option (2)?
Thanks for your help.
Joe
1-year B-2 visitor visa, with a 6-month entry stamp ending on 28 Dec.
We want to get married, but would rather *time* it for
emotional/family reasons rather than for legal reasons. Because of
that, we would like her to be able to stay legally past the expiration
of the entry stamp.
Her divorce became final while she was here, and her house in Aussie
was sold as part of the division of marital assets. There are
serious reasons, other than the usual romantic separation angst,
making it very undesirable for her to have to go back to Aussie and
wait for a marriage visa.
Our options seem to be:
(1) Ask for an extension of her current stay on the visitor visa. I
understand that this is very unlikely to be granted, but she would
like to try anyway.
(2) Marry here before the expiration of her entry stamp. It was not
the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I understand that
the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has already been
more than 90 days. My understanding is that if we get married before
her entry expires that she will remain in legal status here past 28
December while the paperwork is being processed by the BCIS.
(3) Have her remain past the expiration of the entry, and get married
later after she becomes "illegal".
I believe that option (2) is really the safest and is what we should
probably do despite the emotional/family reasons, but here are some
questions please:
(1) What form do we file in order to at least try for the extension to
her current stay? When should we file it? How long would it take to
get an answer?
(2) Does the "get married here before expiration" option seem viable?
How long would it be before she could travel outside the US again (to
visit relatives in Aussie)?
(3) Does the "get married after expiration" option seem viable? Are
there increased risks over option (2)?
Thanks for your help.
Joe
Oct 1st 2003, 6:56 pm
#2
Banned
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
Originally posted by Joe
It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has already been more than 90 days.
It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has already been more than 90 days.
Originally posted by Joe
My understanding is that if we get married before her entry expires that she will remain in legal status here past 28 December while the paperwork is being processed by the BCIS.
My understanding is that if we get married before her entry expires that she will remain in legal status here past 28 December while the paperwork is being processed by the BCIS.
Oct 1st 2003, 7:06 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am a USC residing in the US. My Aussie girlfriend is in the US on a
> 1-year B-2 visitor visa, with a 6-month entry stamp ending on 28 Dec.
> We want to get married, but would rather *time* it for
> emotional/family reasons rather than for legal reasons. Because of
> that, we would like her to be able to stay legally past the expiration
> of the entry stamp.
> Her divorce became final while she was here, and her house in Aussie
> was sold as part of the division of marital assets. There are
> serious reasons, other than the usual romantic separation angst,
> making it very undesirable for her to have to go back to Aussie and
> wait for a marriage visa.
> Our options seem to be:
> (1) Ask for an extension of her current stay on the visitor visa. I
> understand that this is very unlikely to be granted, but she would
> like to try anyway.
> (2) Marry here before the expiration of her entry stamp. It was not
> the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I understand that
> the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has already been
> more than 90 days. My understanding is that if we get married before
> her entry expires that she will remain in legal status here past 28
> December while the paperwork is being processed by the BCIS.
Technically the date that counts is the filing date, not the date of
marriage. Obviously you can't file until you are married though.
> (3) Have her remain past the expiration of the entry, and get married
> later after she becomes "illegal".
> I believe that option (2) is really the safest and is what we should
> probably do despite the emotional/family reasons, but here are some
> questions please:
I'm of the mind that marriage has two parts - a legal and a personal part.
If you can arrange for the two to be combined, great; if you can't, treat
the legal ceremony as just that and treat the personal ceremony as the real
day. (Of course for BCIS purposes you don't want to confuse the issue by
telling them anything about your personal preferences).
> (1) What form do we file in order to at least try for the extension to
> her current stay? When should we file it? How long would it take to
> get an answer?
http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/...orms/i-539.htm
I wouldn't bother though. If it is rejected it will be as if she never filed
it so she could end up in the position where she becomes subject to the 3/10
year bans on returning to the US if she had to leave prior to becoming a
permanent resident.
> (2) Does the "get married here before expiration" option seem viable?
> How long would it be before she could travel outside the US again (to
> visit relatives in Aussie)?
Very viable. She can file for advance parole to travel abroad prior to
getting her greencard.
> (3) Does the "get married after expiration" option seem viable? Are
> there increased risks over option (2)?
Below 180 days overstay the main risk is that she would be "discovered"
(usually because of a traffic incident or something like that) and removal
proceedings started. Above 180 days overstay she becomes subject to a 3 year
ban if she leaves prior to becoming a permanent resident.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
news:[email protected]...
> I am a USC residing in the US. My Aussie girlfriend is in the US on a
> 1-year B-2 visitor visa, with a 6-month entry stamp ending on 28 Dec.
> We want to get married, but would rather *time* it for
> emotional/family reasons rather than for legal reasons. Because of
> that, we would like her to be able to stay legally past the expiration
> of the entry stamp.
> Her divorce became final while she was here, and her house in Aussie
> was sold as part of the division of marital assets. There are
> serious reasons, other than the usual romantic separation angst,
> making it very undesirable for her to have to go back to Aussie and
> wait for a marriage visa.
> Our options seem to be:
> (1) Ask for an extension of her current stay on the visitor visa. I
> understand that this is very unlikely to be granted, but she would
> like to try anyway.
> (2) Marry here before the expiration of her entry stamp. It was not
> the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I understand that
> the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has already been
> more than 90 days. My understanding is that if we get married before
> her entry expires that she will remain in legal status here past 28
> December while the paperwork is being processed by the BCIS.
Technically the date that counts is the filing date, not the date of
marriage. Obviously you can't file until you are married though.
> (3) Have her remain past the expiration of the entry, and get married
> later after she becomes "illegal".
> I believe that option (2) is really the safest and is what we should
> probably do despite the emotional/family reasons, but here are some
> questions please:
I'm of the mind that marriage has two parts - a legal and a personal part.
If you can arrange for the two to be combined, great; if you can't, treat
the legal ceremony as just that and treat the personal ceremony as the real
day. (Of course for BCIS purposes you don't want to confuse the issue by
telling them anything about your personal preferences).
> (1) What form do we file in order to at least try for the extension to
> her current stay? When should we file it? How long would it take to
> get an answer?
http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/...orms/i-539.htm
I wouldn't bother though. If it is rejected it will be as if she never filed
it so she could end up in the position where she becomes subject to the 3/10
year bans on returning to the US if she had to leave prior to becoming a
permanent resident.
> (2) Does the "get married here before expiration" option seem viable?
> How long would it be before she could travel outside the US again (to
> visit relatives in Aussie)?
Very viable. She can file for advance parole to travel abroad prior to
getting her greencard.
> (3) Does the "get married after expiration" option seem viable? Are
> there increased risks over option (2)?
Below 180 days overstay the main risk is that she would be "discovered"
(usually because of a traffic incident or something like that) and removal
proceedings started. Above 180 days overstay she becomes subject to a 3 year
ban if she leaves prior to becoming a permanent resident.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
Oct 1st 2003, 7:31 pm
#4
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
Originally posted by Joe
I am a USC residing in the US. My Aussie girlfriend is in the US on a
1-year B-2 visitor visa, with a 6-month entry stamp ending on 28 Dec.
We want to get married, but would rather *time* it for
emotional/family reasons rather than for legal reasons. Because of
that, we would like her to be able to stay legally past the expiration
of the entry stamp.
Her divorce became final while she was here, and her house in Aussie
was sold as part of the division of marital assets. There are
serious reasons, other than the usual romantic separation angst,
making it very undesirable for her to have to go back to Aussie and
wait for a marriage visa.
Our options seem to be:
(1) Ask for an extension of her current stay on the visitor visa. I
understand that this is very unlikely to be granted, but she would
like to try anyway.
(2) Marry here before the expiration of her entry stamp. It was not
the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I understand that
the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has already been
more than 90 days. My understanding is that if we get married before
her entry expires that she will remain in legal status here past 28
December while the paperwork is being processed by the BCIS.
(3) Have her remain past the expiration of the entry, and get married
later after she becomes "illegal".
I believe that option (2) is really the safest and is what we should
probably do despite the emotional/family reasons, but here are some
questions please:
(1) What form do we file in order to at least try for the extension to
her current stay? When should we file it? How long would it take to
get an answer?
(2) Does the "get married here before expiration" option seem viable?
How long would it be before she could travel outside the US again (to
visit relatives in Aussie)?
(3) Does the "get married after expiration" option seem viable? Are
there increased risks over option (2)?
Thanks for your help.
Joe
I am a USC residing in the US. My Aussie girlfriend is in the US on a
1-year B-2 visitor visa, with a 6-month entry stamp ending on 28 Dec.
We want to get married, but would rather *time* it for
emotional/family reasons rather than for legal reasons. Because of
that, we would like her to be able to stay legally past the expiration
of the entry stamp.
Her divorce became final while she was here, and her house in Aussie
was sold as part of the division of marital assets. There are
serious reasons, other than the usual romantic separation angst,
making it very undesirable for her to have to go back to Aussie and
wait for a marriage visa.
Our options seem to be:
(1) Ask for an extension of her current stay on the visitor visa. I
understand that this is very unlikely to be granted, but she would
like to try anyway.
(2) Marry here before the expiration of her entry stamp. It was not
the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I understand that
the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has already been
more than 90 days. My understanding is that if we get married before
her entry expires that she will remain in legal status here past 28
December while the paperwork is being processed by the BCIS.
(3) Have her remain past the expiration of the entry, and get married
later after she becomes "illegal".
I believe that option (2) is really the safest and is what we should
probably do despite the emotional/family reasons, but here are some
questions please:
(1) What form do we file in order to at least try for the extension to
her current stay? When should we file it? How long would it take to
get an answer?
(2) Does the "get married here before expiration" option seem viable?
How long would it be before she could travel outside the US again (to
visit relatives in Aussie)?
(3) Does the "get married after expiration" option seem viable? Are
there increased risks over option (2)?
Thanks for your help.
Joe
Get married before her entry expires. This will not be your "emotional" marriage, but a civil ceremony. Both of you go to Australia, giving a chance to meet/celebrate with family there and your (then) wife to finalize any personal business/packing she has there.
During this visit, file the Immigrant Visa paperwork directly at the Consulate in Sydney. Obtain an IV in a humane and swift manner, if you are well prepared and have no oeverstay or criminal/medical issues. This process is referred to as DCF around here, and many Oz/US couples have used it and documented it on this NG.
Upon return to the US (can be less than 14 days, IIRC), your new wife is a Permanent Resident and her Green Card is in the mail. No AOS, no waiting for work or travel permission.
A "managed overstay" approach may come back to bite you/her at any time. Isn't it simpler to not add overstay into the equation? You haven't broken any rules yet. It would seem to me better to stay that way.
Oct 1st 2003, 7:57 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
"Matthew Udall" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Originally posted by Joe
> > It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I
> > understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has
> > already been more than 90 days.
> >
> Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out there who
> helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in to clean
> up the mess you made?
I don't think anyone said 90 days!
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
news:[email protected]...
> Originally posted by Joe
> > It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I
> > understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has
> > already been more than 90 days.
> >
> Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out there who
> helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in to clean
> up the mess you made?
I don't think anyone said 90 days!
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
Oct 1st 2003, 8:00 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
> Originally posted by Joe
> > It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I
> > understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has
> > already been more than 90 days.
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Matthew Udall <member@british_expats.com> wrote:
> Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out there who
> helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in to clean
> up the mess you made?
I do not post to this newsgroup at this time, nor do I even keep up on
immigration issues or maintain any websites---nor have I done any of
these for quite a long while. I therefore refute your quite pointed
inference that I am to blame for this man's problem.
I do not appreciate these (what I consider to be) personally derogatory
posts, which I think equate to an attempt at personal defamation of my
character. In my opinion, comments such as this serve only to degrade
the otherwise fine service that you provide to this group, and foster a
rather tawdry digression from the true purpose of this forum.
The above coments are my personal opinion only.
--
Alvena
> > It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I
> > understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has
> > already been more than 90 days.
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Matthew Udall <member@british_expats.com> wrote:
> Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out there who
> helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in to clean
> up the mess you made?
I do not post to this newsgroup at this time, nor do I even keep up on
immigration issues or maintain any websites---nor have I done any of
these for quite a long while. I therefore refute your quite pointed
inference that I am to blame for this man's problem.
I do not appreciate these (what I consider to be) personally derogatory
posts, which I think equate to an attempt at personal defamation of my
character. In my opinion, comments such as this serve only to degrade
the otherwise fine service that you provide to this group, and foster a
rather tawdry digression from the true purpose of this forum.
The above coments are my personal opinion only.
--
Alvena
Oct 1st 2003, 8:12 pm
#7
Banned
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
Originally posted by A. F.
> Originally posted by Joe
> > It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I
> > understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has
> > already been more than 90 days.
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Matthew Udall <member@british_expats.com> wrote:
> Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out there who
> helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in to clean
> up the mess you made?
I do not post to this newsgroup at this time, nor do I even keep up on
immigration issues or maintain any websites---nor have I done any of
these for quite a long while. I therefore refute your quite pointed
inference that I am to blame for this man's problem.
I do not appreciate these (what I consider to be) personally derogatory
posts, which I think equate to an attempt at personal defamation of my
character. In my opinion, comments such as this serve only to degrade
the otherwise fine service that you provide to this group, and foster a
rather tawdry digression from the true purpose of this forum.
The above coments are my personal opinion only.
--
Alvena
> Originally posted by Joe
> > It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I
> > understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has
> > already been more than 90 days.
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Matthew Udall <member@british_expats.com> wrote:
> Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out there who
> helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in to clean
> up the mess you made?
I do not post to this newsgroup at this time, nor do I even keep up on
immigration issues or maintain any websites---nor have I done any of
these for quite a long while. I therefore refute your quite pointed
inference that I am to blame for this man's problem.
I do not appreciate these (what I consider to be) personally derogatory
posts, which I think equate to an attempt at personal defamation of my
character. In my opinion, comments such as this serve only to degrade
the otherwise fine service that you provide to this group, and foster a
rather tawdry digression from the true purpose of this forum.
The above coments are my personal opinion only.
--
Alvena
Nice to hear from you. You know perfectly well Paul’s misinterpretation of the so called 30/60 day rule (despite my telling him “and� you that this was a Consular rule, not an INS rule), the way it was spread on this group, your propagation of it on your site, and then the Doc Steen site once that smoke screen came into place. You only took down your inaccurate information about this on the Doc Steen site once another AILA member confirmed what I had been telling you and Paul all along.
If you can’t remember, look it up in the google archives, and I’m happy to share with you the e-mails I sent to you back then in an attempt to get you from spreading this misinformation to your readers.
Hope you are well.
Oct 1st 2003, 8:25 pm
#8
Banned
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
Originally posted by Andy Platt
I don't think anyone said 90 days!
Andy.
I don't think anyone said 90 days!
Andy.
Here we have the OP saying, “It was not
the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I understand that
the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has already been
more than 90 days�.
It sure seem to me that he thinks there will be an assumption made by the USCIS in his case since he married a certain amount of days after entry.
Oct 1st 2003, 8:34 pm
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
Actually, if I recall correctly (and I'm sure I do), it was YOU who
propagated the myth of the "90 days". I was posting about 30/60 days, and
you posted about 30/60/90 days:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...marriage-based
and type "30/60/90" search only in alt.visa.us.marriage-based, and the very
first HIT is Matt Udall's incorrect post referring to a 30/60/90 day rule
which does not exist.
Paulgani
"Matthew Udall" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Originally posted by Joe
> > It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I
> > understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has
> > already been more than 90 days.
> >
> Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out there who
> helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in to clean
> up the mess you made?
propagated the myth of the "90 days". I was posting about 30/60 days, and
you posted about 30/60/90 days:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...marriage-based
and type "30/60/90" search only in alt.visa.us.marriage-based, and the very
first HIT is Matt Udall's incorrect post referring to a 30/60/90 day rule
which does not exist.
Paulgani
"Matthew Udall" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Originally posted by Joe
> > It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I
> > understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has
> > already been more than 90 days.
> >
> Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out there who
> helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in to clean
> up the mess you made?
Oct 1st 2003, 8:44 pm
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Matt Udall and his 90 day myth
Yes indeed, here is Matt Udall's post from when I challenged him about
referring to a "30/60/90" day rule:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
Seems like he never posted a followup as to what the 90 day part was all
about. I suspect he discovered that he was mistaken. It's unfortunate that
people are still using his sole mention of some mythical 90 day rule.
Paulgani
"paulgani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, if I recall correctly (and I'm sure I do), it was YOU who
> propagated the myth of the "90 days". I was posting about 30/60 days, and
> you posted about 30/60/90 days:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...marriage-based
> and type "30/60/90" search only in alt.visa.us.marriage-based, and the
very
> first HIT is Matt Udall's incorrect post referring to a 30/60/90 day rule
> which does not exist.
> Paulgani
> "Matthew Udall" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Originally posted by Joe
> >
> > > It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I
> > > understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has
> > > already been more than 90 days.
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out there who
> > helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in to clean
> > up the mess you made?
referring to a "30/60/90" day rule:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
Seems like he never posted a followup as to what the 90 day part was all
about. I suspect he discovered that he was mistaken. It's unfortunate that
people are still using his sole mention of some mythical 90 day rule.
Paulgani
"paulgani" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Actually, if I recall correctly (and I'm sure I do), it was YOU who
> propagated the myth of the "90 days". I was posting about 30/60 days, and
> you posted about 30/60/90 days:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...marriage-based
> and type "30/60/90" search only in alt.visa.us.marriage-based, and the
very
> first HIT is Matt Udall's incorrect post referring to a 30/60/90 day rule
> which does not exist.
> Paulgani
> "Matthew Udall" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Originally posted by Joe
> >
> > > It was not the intention to marry on this entry to the US, and I
> > > understand that the BCIS will assume that to be the case since it has
> > > already been more than 90 days.
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out there who
> > helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in to clean
> > up the mess you made?
Oct 1st 2003, 8:48 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Matt Udall propagates mythical 90 day rule
"Matthew Udall" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Originally posted by Andy Platt
> > I don't think anyone said 90 days!
> > Andy.
> Way back when Paul & I debated this on the group, it was sometimes
> referred to as the 30/60/90 day rule. That rule deals with presumptions
Admit the truth. YOU and only YOU referred to it as a 30/60/90 day rule.
This "90 days" myth was originated and propagated by Matt Udall and no one
else!
Paulgani
news:[email protected]...
> Originally posted by Andy Platt
> > I don't think anyone said 90 days!
> > Andy.
> Way back when Paul & I debated this on the group, it was sometimes
> referred to as the 30/60/90 day rule. That rule deals with presumptions
Admit the truth. YOU and only YOU referred to it as a 30/60/90 day rule.
This "90 days" myth was originated and propagated by Matt Udall and no one
else!
Paulgani
Oct 2nd 2003, 1:39 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
In article <[email protected]>,
Matthew Udall <member@british_expats.com> wrote:
> > Matthew Udall <member@british_expats.com> wrote:
> > > Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out
> > there who
> > > helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in
> > to clean
> > > up the mess you made?
>
> Nice to hear from you. You know perfectly well Paul’s misinterpretation
> of the so called 30/60 day rule (despite my telling him “and� you that
> this was a Consular rule, not an INS rule), the way it was spread on
> this group, your propagation of it on your site, and then the Doc Steen
> site once that smoke screen came into place. You only took down your
> inaccurate information about this on the Doc Steen site once another
> AILA member confirmed what I had been telling you and Paul all along.
> If you can’t remember, look it up in the google archives, and I’m happy
> to share with you the e-mails I sent to you back then in an attempt to
> get you from spreading this misinformation to your readers.
>
Your original post above implied that I posted recently about this. I
did not. I resent your implications that I did. If people who read the
archives of this group don't have the good sense to verify their
information's validity, then that is not my problem, frankly.
In our for what it's worth column: I do not own the Doc Steen site, it
is owned by Doc Steen himself. 100% legal and on paper. I have asked him
to remove the site and he refused to do so. There is nothing I can do
about it.
If you have issues with the site, you should muster the courage to
contact him directly. I have not spoken with him in a long time. However
I think you can find his contact information here:
http://docsteen.lawoffice.com/
In the future, I would appreciate your keeping me out of your defamatory
remarks. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
--
Trashy Girl
Matthew Udall <member@british_expats.com> wrote:
> > Matthew Udall <member@british_expats.com> wrote:
> > > Paul, Alvena (and many other old timer regulars)? Anybody out
> > there who
> > > helped propagate this bit of misinformation want to now chip in
> > to clean
> > > up the mess you made?
>
> Nice to hear from you. You know perfectly well Paul’s misinterpretation
> of the so called 30/60 day rule (despite my telling him “and� you that
> this was a Consular rule, not an INS rule), the way it was spread on
> this group, your propagation of it on your site, and then the Doc Steen
> site once that smoke screen came into place. You only took down your
> inaccurate information about this on the Doc Steen site once another
> AILA member confirmed what I had been telling you and Paul all along.
> If you can’t remember, look it up in the google archives, and I’m happy
> to share with you the e-mails I sent to you back then in an attempt to
> get you from spreading this misinformation to your readers.
>
Your original post above implied that I posted recently about this. I
did not. I resent your implications that I did. If people who read the
archives of this group don't have the good sense to verify their
information's validity, then that is not my problem, frankly.
In our for what it's worth column: I do not own the Doc Steen site, it
is owned by Doc Steen himself. 100% legal and on paper. I have asked him
to remove the site and he refused to do so. There is nothing I can do
about it.
If you have issues with the site, you should muster the courage to
contact him directly. I have not spoken with him in a long time. However
I think you can find his contact information here:
http://docsteen.lawoffice.com/
In the future, I would appreciate your keeping me out of your defamatory
remarks. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
--
Trashy Girl
Oct 2nd 2003, 2:14 am
#13
Banned
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
Originally posted by Trashy Girl
Your original post above implied that I posted recently about this. I
did not. I resent your implications that I did.
Your original post above implied that I posted recently about this. I
did not. I resent your implications that I did.
Face it, the misinterpretation of the 30/60 day rule started right here on this particular news group. You picked it up and ran it on your site, which was heavily referred, and we now see that bit of misinformation mirrored all over the net. Good work.
By the way, I did not say Chuck’s site still contains that inaccurate information. I know you removed that information and in its place put a link to Folinskyinla’s and Paul’s discussion about the issue.
I am glad to see you are not as busy as you used to be telling others to commit illegal acts at our POE (does the phrase clean entry ring a bell), and have given up your unlicensed practice of the law (according to the troubles you described having with the Kentucky Bar). Is “that� why you “sold� your site to Chuck?
By the way, I’ve always wondered. When the Kentucky Bar told you to stop practicing law on the net, was it you who for a brief time posted legal advice using broken English under the screen name Kay-Won (or some similar spelling)? Just curious.
Oct 2nd 2003, 4:43 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Matt Udall and his 90 day myth!
"Matthew Udall" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Face it, the misinterpretation of the 30/60 day rule started right here
> on this particular news group.
Yes, but I don't see anything about 30/60 in Joe's post asking for advice.
I only see "90 days". Now, who here started and propagated the myth of 90
days? Will the guilty party please stand up?
Funny, I don't see you posting 30/60/90 anymore. Hmm, perhaps I should give
you credit for acknowledging your error and posting more accurate
information. Nahh - what's the point? It's just MUCH more fun to hammer on
your past errors. Indeed, it's great to do it every chance I get! I mean,
it's just wonderful to keep rubbing it in over and over again. I think it
makes me feel like a real man as opposed to the true weasel that I am. Yup,
that's why I keep at it!
Paulgani
news:[email protected]...
> Face it, the misinterpretation of the 30/60 day rule started right here
> on this particular news group.
Yes, but I don't see anything about 30/60 in Joe's post asking for advice.
I only see "90 days". Now, who here started and propagated the myth of 90
days? Will the guilty party please stand up?
Funny, I don't see you posting 30/60/90 anymore. Hmm, perhaps I should give
you credit for acknowledging your error and posting more accurate
information. Nahh - what's the point? It's just MUCH more fun to hammer on
your past errors. Indeed, it's great to do it every chance I get! I mean,
it's just wonderful to keep rubbing it in over and over again. I think it
makes me feel like a real man as opposed to the true weasel that I am. Yup,
that's why I keep at it!
Paulgani
Oct 16th 2003, 5:41 pm
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Questions on extension to visitor visa and marriage in US
meauxna <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Originally posted by Joe
>
> > I am a USC residing in the US. My Aussie girlfriend is in the US on a
>
<...>
> > Thanks for your help.
>
> > Joe
>
>
>
> Most of the options you raise have risks attached. There are 2 other
> options I can think of off the top of my head. I have experience with
> one of them:
>
>
>
> Get married before her entry expires.
<...>
>
>
>
> During this visit, file the Immigrant Visa paperwork directly at the
> Consulate in Sydney.
<...>
>
>
> A "managed overstay" approach may come back to bite you/her at any time.
> Isn't it simpler to not add overstay into the equation? You haven't
> broken any rules yet. It would seem to me better to stay that way.
Thanks to you and everyone else who responded.
Ok, here's my new understanding...
(1) Asking for an extension is futile. So we won't do that.
(2) Although the "90 day rule" isn't hard-and fast:
(a) She made no false statements to any US official, either at the
Sydney consulate or on arrival.
(b) We actually didn't have an intent to marry during this stay when
she arrived.
(c) We're 5 months into the 6 month entry.
Therefore...
The odds are miniscule that the BCIS will fuss about violation of
the conditions of the visitor's visa.
(3) It's not worth the risk to do a planned overstay. We won't do
that.
In addition...
(4) DCF in Sydney is still a viable choice, although I understand from
earlier queries on this forum that the BCIS is rumbling about
withdrawing DCF and it could go at any time.
(5) She needs to go back to Aussie soon for a bit. If she goes back
to Aussie to DCF (rather than filing from the US) and DCF becomes
unavailable suddenly, then we fall back to "get a spouse visa" while
she waits in Aussie.
Thanks again for the previous help, and thanks in advance for any new
comments on the above, particularly on (2), (4), and (5).
Joe
> Originally posted by Joe
>
> > I am a USC residing in the US. My Aussie girlfriend is in the US on a
>
<...>
> > Thanks for your help.
>
> > Joe
>
>
>
> Most of the options you raise have risks attached. There are 2 other
> options I can think of off the top of my head. I have experience with
> one of them:
>
>
>
> Get married before her entry expires.
<...>
>
>
>
> During this visit, file the Immigrant Visa paperwork directly at the
> Consulate in Sydney.
<...>
>
>
> A "managed overstay" approach may come back to bite you/her at any time.
> Isn't it simpler to not add overstay into the equation? You haven't
> broken any rules yet. It would seem to me better to stay that way.
Thanks to you and everyone else who responded.
Ok, here's my new understanding...
(1) Asking for an extension is futile. So we won't do that.
(2) Although the "90 day rule" isn't hard-and fast:
(a) She made no false statements to any US official, either at the
Sydney consulate or on arrival.
(b) We actually didn't have an intent to marry during this stay when
she arrived.
(c) We're 5 months into the 6 month entry.
Therefore...
The odds are miniscule that the BCIS will fuss about violation of
the conditions of the visitor's visa.
(3) It's not worth the risk to do a planned overstay. We won't do
that.
In addition...
(4) DCF in Sydney is still a viable choice, although I understand from
earlier queries on this forum that the BCIS is rumbling about
withdrawing DCF and it could go at any time.
(5) She needs to go back to Aussie soon for a bit. If she goes back
to Aussie to DCF (rather than filing from the US) and DCF becomes
unavailable suddenly, then we fall back to "get a spouse visa" while
she waits in Aussie.
Thanks again for the previous help, and thanks in advance for any new
comments on the above, particularly on (2), (4), and (5).
Joe