A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
Feb 3rd 2003, 2:56 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
*****
It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or
Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and
filing for AOS. It is NOT illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist if your
intent is to depart the U.S. after a temporary visit, but you change your
mind and decide to marry and file AOS AFTER your arrival in the U.S.
An INS official will attempt to determine your intent at the Port of
Entry. Should you be determined to have "immigrant intent", you *will* be
denied entry to the U.S., and you *could* be subjected to Expedited
Removal, which entails a 5 year ban to reentry. Note, there is NO appeal
of the POE official's decision.
Should you successfully enter the U.S., you will be permitted to AOS,
*regardless of your original intent* at the POE. Case law binds the INS
to grant AOS if having "preconceived intent to immigrate" at entry is the
only negative equity in your application. However, if it is determined
that you made "material misrepresentations" at the POE in order to achieve
an entry, you will be denied AOS.
*****
One thing I discovered is that it is NOT possible to discuss all the issues
and ramifications of this topic in a few paragraphs. It is really quite a
complex subject area, and requires exhaustive study to fully understand.
Paulgani
It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or
Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and
filing for AOS. It is NOT illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist if your
intent is to depart the U.S. after a temporary visit, but you change your
mind and decide to marry and file AOS AFTER your arrival in the U.S.
An INS official will attempt to determine your intent at the Port of
Entry. Should you be determined to have "immigrant intent", you *will* be
denied entry to the U.S., and you *could* be subjected to Expedited
Removal, which entails a 5 year ban to reentry. Note, there is NO appeal
of the POE official's decision.
Should you successfully enter the U.S., you will be permitted to AOS,
*regardless of your original intent* at the POE. Case law binds the INS
to grant AOS if having "preconceived intent to immigrate" at entry is the
only negative equity in your application. However, if it is determined
that you made "material misrepresentations" at the POE in order to achieve
an entry, you will be denied AOS.
*****
One thing I discovered is that it is NOT possible to discuss all the issues
and ramifications of this topic in a few paragraphs. It is really quite a
complex subject area, and requires exhaustive study to fully understand.
Paulgani
Feb 3rd 2003, 5:32 am
#2
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
Originally posted by Paulgani
*****
It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or
Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and
filing for AOS. It is NOT illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist if your
intent is to depart the U.S. after a temporary visit, but you change your
mind and decide to marry and file AOS AFTER your arrival in the U.S.
An INS official will attempt to determine your intent at the Port of
Entry. Should you be determined to have "immigrant intent", you *will* be
denied entry to the U.S., and you *could* be subjected to Expedited
Removal, which entails a 5 year ban to reentry. Note, there is NO appeal
of the POE official's decision.
Should you successfully enter the U.S., you will be permitted to AOS,
*regardless of your original intent* at the POE. Case law binds the INS
to grant AOS if having "preconceived intent to immigrate" at entry is the
only negative equity in your application. However, if it is determined
that you made "material misrepresentations" at the POE in order to achieve
an entry, you will be denied AOS.
*****
One thing I discovered is that it is NOT possible to discuss all the issues
and ramifications of this topic in a few paragraphs. It is really quite a
complex subject area, and requires exhaustive study to fully understand.
Paulgani
*****
It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or
Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and
filing for AOS. It is NOT illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist if your
intent is to depart the U.S. after a temporary visit, but you change your
mind and decide to marry and file AOS AFTER your arrival in the U.S.
An INS official will attempt to determine your intent at the Port of
Entry. Should you be determined to have "immigrant intent", you *will* be
denied entry to the U.S., and you *could* be subjected to Expedited
Removal, which entails a 5 year ban to reentry. Note, there is NO appeal
of the POE official's decision.
Should you successfully enter the U.S., you will be permitted to AOS,
*regardless of your original intent* at the POE. Case law binds the INS
to grant AOS if having "preconceived intent to immigrate" at entry is the
only negative equity in your application. However, if it is determined
that you made "material misrepresentations" at the POE in order to achieve
an entry, you will be denied AOS.
*****
One thing I discovered is that it is NOT possible to discuss all the issues
and ramifications of this topic in a few paragraphs. It is really quite a
complex subject area, and requires exhaustive study to fully understand.
Paulgani
Amen. And even after exhaustive study, it is hard to understand.
Last night, I watched the "60 Minutes" article on Brian Kelly. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in538650.shtml
The FBI was looking for a Russian "mole" and ultimately arrested Robet Hansen. However, before then, the investigation had pointed at Brian Kelley of the CIA. The attempts to entrap him failed which served to the FBI, not as evidence of innocence, but as evidence of his skill and cunning to avoid capture!
This reminded me of some marriage fraud cases I've tried in Immigration Court -- believe it or not, the INS considered evidence of a bona fide marriage as evidence of fraud! Go figure.
So, in addition to my "amen", I'd recommend caution.
Feb 3rd 2003, 7:04 am
#3
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 281
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
Originally posted by Paulgani
*****
It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or
Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and
filing for AOS. It is NOT illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist if your
intent is to depart the U.S. after a temporary visit, but you change your
mind and decide to marry and file AOS AFTER your arrival in the U.S.
An INS official will attempt to determine your intent at the Port of
Entry. Should you be determined to have "immigrant intent", you *will* be
denied entry to the U.S., and you *could* be subjected to Expedited
Removal, which entails a 5 year ban to reentry. Note, there is NO appeal
of the POE official's decision.
Should you successfully enter the U.S., you will be permitted to AOS,
*regardless of your original intent* at the POE. Case law binds the INS
to grant AOS if having "preconceived intent to immigrate" at entry is the
only negative equity in your application. However, if it is determined
that you made "material misrepresentations" at the POE in order to achieve
an entry, you will be denied AOS.
*****
One thing I discovered is that it is NOT possible to discuss all the issues
and ramifications of this topic in a few paragraphs. It is really quite a
complex subject area, and requires exhaustive study to fully understand.
Paulgani
*****
It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or
Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and
filing for AOS. It is NOT illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist if your
intent is to depart the U.S. after a temporary visit, but you change your
mind and decide to marry and file AOS AFTER your arrival in the U.S.
An INS official will attempt to determine your intent at the Port of
Entry. Should you be determined to have "immigrant intent", you *will* be
denied entry to the U.S., and you *could* be subjected to Expedited
Removal, which entails a 5 year ban to reentry. Note, there is NO appeal
of the POE official's decision.
Should you successfully enter the U.S., you will be permitted to AOS,
*regardless of your original intent* at the POE. Case law binds the INS
to grant AOS if having "preconceived intent to immigrate" at entry is the
only negative equity in your application. However, if it is determined
that you made "material misrepresentations" at the POE in order to achieve
an entry, you will be denied AOS.
*****
One thing I discovered is that it is NOT possible to discuss all the issues
and ramifications of this topic in a few paragraphs. It is really quite a
complex subject area, and requires exhaustive study to fully understand.
Paulgani
This is, by far, one of the most concise and accurate posts regarding this subject I have seen thus far. Thank you for that.
I hope the people with questions concerning this are lucky enough to happen onto this post.
Jen
Feb 3rd 2003, 8:03 am
#4
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 35,082
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
Originally posted by Paulgani
*****
It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or
Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and
filing for AOS. It is NOT illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist if your
intent is to depart the U.S. after a temporary visit, but you change your
mind and decide to marry and file AOS AFTER your arrival in the U.S.
An INS official will attempt to determine your intent at the Port of
Entry. Should you be determined to have "immigrant intent", you *will* be
denied entry to the U.S., and you *could* be subjected to Expedited
Removal, which entails a 5 year ban to reentry. Note, there is NO appeal
of the POE official's decision.
Should you successfully enter the U.S., you will be permitted to AOS,
*regardless of your original intent* at the POE. Case law binds the INS
to grant AOS if having "preconceived intent to immigrate" at entry is the
only negative equity in your application. However, if it is determined
that you made "material misrepresentations" at the POE in order to achieve
an entry, you will be denied AOS.
*****
One thing I discovered is that it is NOT possible to discuss all the issues
and ramifications of this topic in a few paragraphs. It is really quite a
complex subject area, and requires exhaustive study to fully understand.
Paulgani
*****
It is illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or
Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and
filing for AOS. It is NOT illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist if your
intent is to depart the U.S. after a temporary visit, but you change your
mind and decide to marry and file AOS AFTER your arrival in the U.S.
An INS official will attempt to determine your intent at the Port of
Entry. Should you be determined to have "immigrant intent", you *will* be
denied entry to the U.S., and you *could* be subjected to Expedited
Removal, which entails a 5 year ban to reentry. Note, there is NO appeal
of the POE official's decision.
Should you successfully enter the U.S., you will be permitted to AOS,
*regardless of your original intent* at the POE. Case law binds the INS
to grant AOS if having "preconceived intent to immigrate" at entry is the
only negative equity in your application. However, if it is determined
that you made "material misrepresentations" at the POE in order to achieve
an entry, you will be denied AOS.
*****
One thing I discovered is that it is NOT possible to discuss all the issues
and ramifications of this topic in a few paragraphs. It is really quite a
complex subject area, and requires exhaustive study to fully understand.
Paulgani
This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for. It makes sense to me.
Is this open to tweaking by the NG community?
Is it something you're willing to share/let others post?
For everyone else:
Is this a statement you can live with if posted in reply to the countless someones who come here and ask "can't I come over on the VW/TV and get married and stay?" or similar?
Rather than keep the argument going, I propose that we create this as a solution that can be lived with. Of course the agreement that I'm going for would come from MattU, Patrick, Jenney and others from that side of the discussion, and Rete and others who have, or have wanted to, give a complete answer and let each couple make the choice that works for them.
To make the record clear: I do not condone illegal behavior. I do believe that people have the right to factual information.
Feb 3rd 2003, 8:21 am
#5
Pagan Sex God
Joined: May 2002
Location: Living in Oblivion
Posts: 3,668
If it is "illegal to enter the U.S. as a tourist (via. B1/B2, Visa Waiver, or Canadian Waiver), with a preconceived intent to immigrate by marrying and filing for AOS" then it is at the very least immoral if not illegal to give it as advice to people who are looking for a way of avoiding the INS process.
My side of the argument has always been about advising people to do enter on VW and marry and the actual act itself. This to me is a perfect solution - give people this snippet in pure english and make them make up their own mind.
Patrick
BTW I met Rob Clews today for lunch, what a nice guy. Now I have met two people from the NG and its great, they have both been nice.
My side of the argument has always been about advising people to do enter on VW and marry and the actual act itself. This to me is a perfect solution - give people this snippet in pure english and make them make up their own mind.
Patrick
BTW I met Rob Clews today for lunch, what a nice guy. Now I have met two people from the NG and its great, they have both been nice.
Feb 3rd 2003, 8:48 am
#6
Banned
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3,825
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
Originally posted by meauxna
Thank you, Paul!
This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for. It makes sense to me.
Is this open to tweaking by the NG community?
Is it something you're willing to share/let others post?
For everyone else:
Is this a statement you can live with if posted in reply to the countless someones who come here and ask "can't I come over on the VW/TV and get married and stay?" or similar?
Rather than keep the argument going, I propose that we create this as a solution that can be lived with. Of course the agreement that I'm going for would come from MattU, Patrick, Jenney and others from that side of the discussion, and Rete and others who have, or have wanted to, give a complete answer and let each couple make the choice that works for them.
To make the record clear: I do not condone illegal behavior. I do believe that people have the right to factual information.
Thank you, Paul!
This is exactly the kind of thing I was hoping for. It makes sense to me.
Is this open to tweaking by the NG community?
Is it something you're willing to share/let others post?
For everyone else:
Is this a statement you can live with if posted in reply to the countless someones who come here and ask "can't I come over on the VW/TV and get married and stay?" or similar?
Rather than keep the argument going, I propose that we create this as a solution that can be lived with. Of course the agreement that I'm going for would come from MattU, Patrick, Jenney and others from that side of the discussion, and Rete and others who have, or have wanted to, give a complete answer and let each couple make the choice that works for them.
To make the record clear: I do not condone illegal behavior. I do believe that people have the right to factual information.
I think Paul's short essay is pretty good. It gives some accurate information, which includes warnings about what can happen at the POE.
There have been other similar essays before on various sites, and inevitably the pages end up being used as a tool to educate others outside the U.S. on how to get away with an illegal act at the POE. For example, I would often see people on the group telling others who were clearly outside the U.S. and who wanted to immigrate with a nonimmigrant option, to “go read Alvena’s tourist adjustment page�.
Would it be reasonable to think someone currently outside the U.S. is going to read this, then be able to truly "change his or her mind" after entry? Is it also reasonable to think someone outside the U.S. is going to now “plan on changing his or her mind� once they have entered (and thus did not really change their mind at all, and instead just committed an illegal act at the POE)? Would such a person's actions, who has immigrant intent (even if they want to say to themselves that they are really going to "change their mind" and decide to AOS after they enter) be consistent with someone who really had nonimmigrant intent (amount of luggage, quitting a job back home, disposing of property, etc)? Couldn’t the answer then just be a tool to teach others how to get away with an illegal act at the POE?
Will giving this answer taint some and ensure that some will be committing an illegal act at the POE? Could it be used by some to instead focus on the "getting away with an illegal act" aspect? This is the ultimate dilemma and I understand that it is difficult if not impossible to discuss this with someone outside the U.S., without it turning into a tutorial as to how to get away with an illegal act at the POE.
What if the focus were instead on the fact that it’s an illegal act committed at the POE, without discussing the "but you might get away with it" part once past the POE? Would that be a worthless approach when dealing with someone who is outside the U.S., asking about immigrating with a nonimmigrant option? (and I’m not saying this is what I would recommend either, just throwing this out for discussion). Which method would make it more likely that someone outside the U.S. won’t be committing an illegal act at the POE (and I would think then tend to reduce the risk of that person being hit with devastating consequences at the POE), and which approach would preserve someone’s innocence while coming to the U.S?
I recall a caller around 3 or 4 months ago who called with very similar questions. His fiancée had a tourist visa and he wanted me to basically tell him (confirm) that it was OK for her to enter, marry and file for AOS (he was just calling for information at this point).
I told him flat out that I could not advise his fiancée to commit an illegal act at the POE (I explained to him what the illegal act was), that I would not be doing them any favors by encouraging them to take this risk, and that there could be devastating consequences at the POE. He was not aware of this illegal act, nor do I think he really believed me or took it seriously as he mentioned over and over again how he's been told by others (even on news groups on the net) that what he was proposing happens all the time. Of course, there were "other" things we talked about too, but he got very upset with me every time I kept going back to the fact that what his fiancée would be doing would be an illegal act at the POE (and that he would be encouraging her to commit this illegal act at the POE). He got more and more argumentative saying it was no such thing, and he eventually blurted out a swear word and slammed down the phone. Guess I won't be doing their AOS ;-). He hung up on me (and of course I did not have his name or phone number to call him back) before I ever had the chance to discuss with him whether DCF was an option for them, or to discuss other options such as the fiancee visa or I-130/K-3.
Last edited by Matthew Udall; Feb 3rd 2003 at 9:10 am.
Feb 4th 2003, 2:18 am
#7
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 160
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
Originally posted by Matthew Udall
Hi Meauxna,
I think Paul's short essay is pretty good. It gives some accurate information, which includes warnings about what can happen at the POE.
There have been other similar essays before on various sites, and inevitably the pages end up being used as a tool to educate others outside the U.S. on how to get away with an illegal act at the POE. For example, I would often see people on the group telling others who were clearly outside the U.S. and who wanted to immigrate with a nonimmigrant option, to “go read Alvena’s tourist adjustment page�.
Would it be reasonable to think someone currently outside the U.S. is going to read this, then be able to truly "change his or her mind" after entry? Is it also reasonable to think someone outside the U.S. is going to now “plan on changing his or her mind� once they have entered (and thus did not really change their mind at all, and instead just committed an illegal act at the POE)? Would such a person's actions, who has immigrant intent (even if they want to say to themselves that they are really going to "change their mind" and decide to AOS after they enter) be consistent with someone who really had nonimmigrant intent (amount of luggage, quitting a job back home, disposing of property, etc)? Couldn’t the answer then just be a tool to teach others how to get away with an illegal act at the POE?
Will giving this answer taint some and ensure that some will be committing an illegal act at the POE? Could it be used by some to instead focus on the "getting away with an illegal act" aspect? This is the ultimate dilemma and I understand that it is difficult if not impossible to discuss this with someone outside the U.S., without it turning into a tutorial as to how to get away with an illegal act at the POE.
What if the focus were instead on the fact that it’s an illegal act committed at the POE, without discussing the "but you might get away with it" part once past the POE? Would that be a worthless approach when dealing with someone who is outside the U.S., asking about immigrating with a nonimmigrant option? (and I’m not saying this is what I would recommend either, just throwing this out for discussion). Which method would make it more likely that someone outside the U.S. won’t be committing an illegal act at the POE (and I would think then tend to reduce the risk of that person being hit with devastating consequences at the POE), and which approach would preserve someone’s innocence while coming to the U.S?
Hi Meauxna,
I think Paul's short essay is pretty good. It gives some accurate information, which includes warnings about what can happen at the POE.
There have been other similar essays before on various sites, and inevitably the pages end up being used as a tool to educate others outside the U.S. on how to get away with an illegal act at the POE. For example, I would often see people on the group telling others who were clearly outside the U.S. and who wanted to immigrate with a nonimmigrant option, to “go read Alvena’s tourist adjustment page�.
Would it be reasonable to think someone currently outside the U.S. is going to read this, then be able to truly "change his or her mind" after entry? Is it also reasonable to think someone outside the U.S. is going to now “plan on changing his or her mind� once they have entered (and thus did not really change their mind at all, and instead just committed an illegal act at the POE)? Would such a person's actions, who has immigrant intent (even if they want to say to themselves that they are really going to "change their mind" and decide to AOS after they enter) be consistent with someone who really had nonimmigrant intent (amount of luggage, quitting a job back home, disposing of property, etc)? Couldn’t the answer then just be a tool to teach others how to get away with an illegal act at the POE?
Will giving this answer taint some and ensure that some will be committing an illegal act at the POE? Could it be used by some to instead focus on the "getting away with an illegal act" aspect? This is the ultimate dilemma and I understand that it is difficult if not impossible to discuss this with someone outside the U.S., without it turning into a tutorial as to how to get away with an illegal act at the POE.
What if the focus were instead on the fact that it’s an illegal act committed at the POE, without discussing the "but you might get away with it" part once past the POE? Would that be a worthless approach when dealing with someone who is outside the U.S., asking about immigrating with a nonimmigrant option? (and I’m not saying this is what I would recommend either, just throwing this out for discussion). Which method would make it more likely that someone outside the U.S. won’t be committing an illegal act at the POE (and I would think then tend to reduce the risk of that person being hit with devastating consequences at the POE), and which approach would preserve someone’s innocence while coming to the U.S?
Another completely different situation is a person knowledgeable of the relevant law advising or alerting another of a certain illegal path because the first party believes it might be an attractive option, even given the risk. Now, there may be reasonable disagreement of the risk itself, which could lead to some productive exchange of information and perhaps an element of deferred judgment toward the professional participants. But an impasse is going to occur when breaking the law is truly an attractive option, particularly when the original poster has a sympathetic story with few options and the law in question appears arbitrary or even unjust.
Some are ALWAYS going to equate illegal with bad and chide others for even providing a roadmap which could be used for illegal purposes. Others try to give information that seems in the best interest of the poster, where law is often nothing more than a morally-neutral, consequential deterrence. This second category of contributors generally couldn't give a hoot what the first category thinks about this, so as a matter of fact this sort of thing isn't going to stop.
Personally, I agree that objectively posting the whole story probably does or could influence somebody to enter the US by non-immigrant means with immigration intent. Again personally, I don't believe that's a bad thing, so long as the risks are clearly communicated.
Feb 4th 2003, 3:23 am
#8
Banned
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,933
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
Originally posted by John McHugh
I think part of the reason why this discussion hasn't reached any satisfactory resolution is that "illegal advice" can be dispensed for different reasons. It may be that the person offering advice doesn't know the relevant law, or is not sufficiently familiar with the consequences of breaking the law. This scenario doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. The person who posts erroneous information needs to be corrected (in both the interest of the advisor and advisee), and if it's done in a civil manner, more likely than not the criticism would be well-received.
Another completely different situation is a person knowledgeable of the relevant law advising or alerting another of a certain illegal path because the first party believes it might be an attractive option, even given the risk. Now, there may be reasonable disagreement of the risk itself, which could lead to some productive exchange of information and perhaps an element of deferred judgment toward the professional participants. But an impasse is going to occur when breaking the law is truly an attractive option, particularly when the original poster has a sympathetic story with few options and the law in question appears arbitrary or even unjust.
Some are ALWAYS going to equate illegal with bad and chide others for even providing a roadmap which could be used for illegal purposes. Others try to give information that seems in the best interest of the poster, where law is often nothing more than a morally-neutral, consequential deterrence. This second category of contributors generally couldn't give a hoot what the first category thinks about this, so as a matter of fact this sort of thing isn't going to stop.
Personally, I agree that objectively posting the whole story probably does or could influence somebody to enter the US by non-immigrant means with immigration intent. Again personally, I don't believe that's a bad thing, so long as the risks are clearly communicated.
I think part of the reason why this discussion hasn't reached any satisfactory resolution is that "illegal advice" can be dispensed for different reasons. It may be that the person offering advice doesn't know the relevant law, or is not sufficiently familiar with the consequences of breaking the law. This scenario doesn't strike me as particularly controversial. The person who posts erroneous information needs to be corrected (in both the interest of the advisor and advisee), and if it's done in a civil manner, more likely than not the criticism would be well-received.
Another completely different situation is a person knowledgeable of the relevant law advising or alerting another of a certain illegal path because the first party believes it might be an attractive option, even given the risk. Now, there may be reasonable disagreement of the risk itself, which could lead to some productive exchange of information and perhaps an element of deferred judgment toward the professional participants. But an impasse is going to occur when breaking the law is truly an attractive option, particularly when the original poster has a sympathetic story with few options and the law in question appears arbitrary or even unjust.
Some are ALWAYS going to equate illegal with bad and chide others for even providing a roadmap which could be used for illegal purposes. Others try to give information that seems in the best interest of the poster, where law is often nothing more than a morally-neutral, consequential deterrence. This second category of contributors generally couldn't give a hoot what the first category thinks about this, so as a matter of fact this sort of thing isn't going to stop.
Personally, I agree that objectively posting the whole story probably does or could influence somebody to enter the US by non-immigrant means with immigration intent. Again personally, I don't believe that's a bad thing, so long as the risks are clearly communicated.
Feb 4th 2003, 4:02 am
#9
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 281
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
Mr. Udall,
What do you require from clients, before you agree to represent them, to prove to you that there was no intent or plans to wed upon entering the U.S. on a Visa Waiver.
Seeing as you feel so strongly about the situation, I would assume that you have a standard procedure that you follow when such a case arises.
Or, perhaps, you don't represent people in this situation at all.
I'm not being cheeky, I truly am curious about your modus operandi.
I welcome answers from other attorneys, as well.
What do you require from clients, before you agree to represent them, to prove to you that there was no intent or plans to wed upon entering the U.S. on a Visa Waiver.
Seeing as you feel so strongly about the situation, I would assume that you have a standard procedure that you follow when such a case arises.
Or, perhaps, you don't represent people in this situation at all.
I'm not being cheeky, I truly am curious about your modus operandi.
I welcome answers from other attorneys, as well.
Feb 4th 2003, 6:33 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
"Matthew Udall" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Will giving this answer taint some and ensure that some will be
> committing an illegal act at the POE? Could it be used by some to
> instead focus on the "getting away with an illegal act" aspect?
> This is the ultimate dilemma and I understand that it is difficult
> if not impossible to discuss this with someone outside the U.S.,
> without it turning into a tutorial as to how to get away with an
> illegal act at the POE.
I've seen you reassure K-1 posters who married within 90 days, but could not
file AOS within 90 days, that everything would be OK, because the law only
requires the marriage be done within 90 days. By making such a reassurance,
aren't you essentially endorsing the illegal act of overstaying one's visa?
Shouldn't the proper ethical course of action be to advise that the spouse
depart on time, and then apply for a spousal immigrant visa? Or, do you
instead believe in following a "risk-benefit" analysis, offering information
that the risk of being detained/deported for a short K-1 overstay is very
small vs. probably being separated for another year or more?
I've also seen FolinskyinLA offer guidance on EAD issues, and on how K-1ers
by default have employment authorization even without documents, and should
they find someone to hire them (or continue to employ them), the worse that
could happen is that the employer would be charged with document violations
should they not be able to procure their EAD. Do you feel he is offering a
tutorial on how (it is OK) to get away with working without proper
documents, and essentially assisting or duping one's employer into breaking
the law? I wonder, does HE provide his clients with information in order to
apply a "risk-benefit" analysis with regards to working without proper
documents?
Paulgani
news:[email protected]...
> Will giving this answer taint some and ensure that some will be
> committing an illegal act at the POE? Could it be used by some to
> instead focus on the "getting away with an illegal act" aspect?
> This is the ultimate dilemma and I understand that it is difficult
> if not impossible to discuss this with someone outside the U.S.,
> without it turning into a tutorial as to how to get away with an
> illegal act at the POE.
I've seen you reassure K-1 posters who married within 90 days, but could not
file AOS within 90 days, that everything would be OK, because the law only
requires the marriage be done within 90 days. By making such a reassurance,
aren't you essentially endorsing the illegal act of overstaying one's visa?
Shouldn't the proper ethical course of action be to advise that the spouse
depart on time, and then apply for a spousal immigrant visa? Or, do you
instead believe in following a "risk-benefit" analysis, offering information
that the risk of being detained/deported for a short K-1 overstay is very
small vs. probably being separated for another year or more?
I've also seen FolinskyinLA offer guidance on EAD issues, and on how K-1ers
by default have employment authorization even without documents, and should
they find someone to hire them (or continue to employ them), the worse that
could happen is that the employer would be charged with document violations
should they not be able to procure their EAD. Do you feel he is offering a
tutorial on how (it is OK) to get away with working without proper
documents, and essentially assisting or duping one's employer into breaking
the law? I wonder, does HE provide his clients with information in order to
apply a "risk-benefit" analysis with regards to working without proper
documents?
Paulgani
Feb 4th 2003, 6:49 am
#11
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
Originally posted by jeninifer
Mr. Udall,
What do you require from clients, before you agree to represent them, to prove to you that there was no intent or plans to wed upon entering the U.S. on a Visa Waiver.
Seeing as you feel so strongly about the situation, I would assume that you have a standard procedure that you follow when such a case arises.
Or, perhaps, you don't represent people in this situation at all.
I'm not being cheeky, I truly am curious about your modus operandi.
I welcome answers from other attorneys, as well.
Mr. Udall,
What do you require from clients, before you agree to represent them, to prove to you that there was no intent or plans to wed upon entering the U.S. on a Visa Waiver.
Seeing as you feel so strongly about the situation, I would assume that you have a standard procedure that you follow when such a case arises.
Or, perhaps, you don't represent people in this situation at all.
I'm not being cheeky, I truly am curious about your modus operandi.
I welcome answers from other attorneys, as well.
Hi:
Jennifer, please be nice. What Matt has been saying all along is consistent with the rules applicable to lawyers, including this one. I believe that www.shusterman.com talks in pretty much similar terms.
If a client comes in and tells me that she violated the immigration law in the past and NOW wants me to assist them -- then I can do that.
However, if a US citizen says I want my fiance here ASAP so we can get married here and file for AOS -- I am NOT ALLOWED to avdvise them on how to break the law.
BTW, lawyers in many states are required to take "MCLE" [mandatory continuing legal education] including some in legal ethics. A topic of current discussion is how Enron's attorneys are in hot water for the advice they gave. In fact, this may lead to "reform" of an attorney's duty of confidnetiality -- stay tuned.
As a final point -- there is an old joke that I once heard from a South Florida lawyer who did a lot of drug related criminal defense: "When advising a client, you are to visualize a microhpone wired into the US attorney's office which is sitting in office chair. An attorney should never give advice that a US attorney can use against the attorney."
Feb 4th 2003, 7:08 am
#12
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 281
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi:
Jennifer, please be nice. What Matt has been saying all along is consistent with the rules applicable to lawyers, including this one. I believe that www.shusterman.com talks in pretty much similar terms.
If a client comes in and tells me that she violated the immigration law in the past and NOW wants me to assist them -- then I can do that.
However, if a US citizen says I want my fiance here ASAP so we can get married here and file for AOS -- I am NOT ALLOWED to avdvise them on how to break the law.
BTW, lawyers in many states are required to take "MCLE" [mandatory continuing legal education] including some in legal ethics. A topic of current discussion is how Enron's attorneys are in hot water for the advice they gave. In fact, this may lead to "reform" of an attorney's duty of confidnetiality -- stay tuned.
As a final point -- there is an old joke that I once heard from a South Florida lawyer who did a lot of drug related criminal defense: "When advising a client, you are to visualize a microhpone wired into the US attorney's office which is sitting in office chair. An attorney should never give advice that a US attorney can use against the attorney."
Hi:
Jennifer, please be nice. What Matt has been saying all along is consistent with the rules applicable to lawyers, including this one. I believe that www.shusterman.com talks in pretty much similar terms.
If a client comes in and tells me that she violated the immigration law in the past and NOW wants me to assist them -- then I can do that.
However, if a US citizen says I want my fiance here ASAP so we can get married here and file for AOS -- I am NOT ALLOWED to avdvise them on how to break the law.
BTW, lawyers in many states are required to take "MCLE" [mandatory continuing legal education] including some in legal ethics. A topic of current discussion is how Enron's attorneys are in hot water for the advice they gave. In fact, this may lead to "reform" of an attorney's duty of confidnetiality -- stay tuned.
As a final point -- there is an old joke that I once heard from a South Florida lawyer who did a lot of drug related criminal defense: "When advising a client, you are to visualize a microhpone wired into the US attorney's office which is sitting in office chair. An attorney should never give advice that a US attorney can use against the attorney."
Folinskyinla,
I assure you, I wasn't being "not nice." I was asking a legitimate question.
I am very aware of Mr. Udall's position as an attorney and I wasn't questioning that. I also made no mention of advising anyone to break any laws.
Mr. Udall has made himself very clear. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him. I am simply asking a question.
My question was/is: "What information, if any, do you require from a would-be client to prove to you, as an attorney, that they entered the US with no intent to marry."
Or, do you not accept the case of a client that wishes to marry on a Visa Waiver (without predetermined intentions) and apply for AOS?
I ask the same question of you.
I look forward to your answers.
Jennifer
Feb 4th 2003, 7:34 am
#13
Pagan Sex God
Joined: May 2002
Location: Living in Oblivion
Posts: 3,668
Hi Stuart and Matt,
I can't beleive the crap you put up with from half-wits who have been doing the visa process for 5 minutes and think they are all that about it.
If someone walked in my software test lab and (just because they have used software) started telling me how to test software (like these guys try and tell you your job) it would make there nose bleed.
To you who think they are better Immigration lawyers - no-one is going to tell you how to serve hamburgers so don't tell lawyers how to do there job.
Patrick
I can't beleive the crap you put up with from half-wits who have been doing the visa process for 5 minutes and think they are all that about it.
If someone walked in my software test lab and (just because they have used software) started telling me how to test software (like these guys try and tell you your job) it would make there nose bleed.
To you who think they are better Immigration lawyers - no-one is going to tell you how to serve hamburgers so don't tell lawyers how to do there job.
Patrick
Feb 4th 2003, 7:43 am
#14
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 281
Originally posted by Patrick
Hi Stuart and Matt,
I can't beleive the crap you put up with from half-wits who have been doing the visa process for 5 minutes and think they are all that about it.
If someone walked in my software test lab and (just because they have used software) started telling me how to test software (like these guys try and tell you your job) it would make there nose bleed.
To you who think they are better Immigration lawyers - no-one is going to tell you how to serve hamburgers so don't tell lawyers how to do there job.
Patrick
Hi Stuart and Matt,
I can't beleive the crap you put up with from half-wits who have been doing the visa process for 5 minutes and think they are all that about it.
If someone walked in my software test lab and (just because they have used software) started telling me how to test software (like these guys try and tell you your job) it would make there nose bleed.
To you who think they are better Immigration lawyers - no-one is going to tell you how to serve hamburgers so don't tell lawyers how to do there job.
Patrick
I, personally, think that some of their posts have been very effective and helpful as I find in some of the posts of non-attorney types.
I don't recall anyone in this thread claiming to be an attorney when they or not - making it nearly impossible to claim to be an even better attorney.
As far as hamburgers go, I'm not much of a ground meat fan, but when I crave one I sure am thankful there is someone to flip it for me.
Jennifer
P.S. Still looking forward to my answer.
Feb 4th 2003, 9:40 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A short answer for those inquiring about AOS as a tourist
"paulgani" wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> I've seen you reassure K-1 posters who married within 90 days, but
> could not file AOS within 90 days, that everything would be OK,
> because the law only requires the marriage be done within 90 days. By
> making such a reassurance, aren't you essentially endorsing the
> illegal act of overstaying one's visa? Shouldn't the proper ethical
> course of action be to advise that the spouse depart on time, and then
> apply for a spousal immigrant visa?
I honestly don't know where this idea that a K1 has to file an AOS within
the 90 days came from. If you look at the first page of the I485, under
Persons Who Are Ineligible, it states:
[...] you are not eligible for adjustment of status if any of the
following apply to you:
[...]
(point 4) your authorized stay expired before you filed this application;
you were employed in the US prior to filing this application, without INS
authorization; or you otherwise failed to maintain your nonimmigrant
status, other than through no fault of your own or for technical reasons,
***unless*** you are applying because you are an immediate relative of a
US citizen (parent, spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under 21
years old), a ***K-1 fiance(e) or K-2 fiance dependent who married the US
petitioner within 90 days of admission*** or an "H" or "I" or special
immigrant [...]. (emphasis all mine).
There is no way whatsoever that that can be misinterpreted as meaning
that a K1 fiance *who married within 90 days* is *not* eligible to file
adjustment of status, even if their authorized stay expired. In fact, it
serves more to confirm that a K1 who has married but let that K1 status
lapse is perfectly entitled to apply for AOS.
--
Targaff
news:[email protected]:
> I've seen you reassure K-1 posters who married within 90 days, but
> could not file AOS within 90 days, that everything would be OK,
> because the law only requires the marriage be done within 90 days. By
> making such a reassurance, aren't you essentially endorsing the
> illegal act of overstaying one's visa? Shouldn't the proper ethical
> course of action be to advise that the spouse depart on time, and then
> apply for a spousal immigrant visa?
I honestly don't know where this idea that a K1 has to file an AOS within
the 90 days came from. If you look at the first page of the I485, under
Persons Who Are Ineligible, it states:
[...] you are not eligible for adjustment of status if any of the
following apply to you:
[...]
(point 4) your authorized stay expired before you filed this application;
you were employed in the US prior to filing this application, without INS
authorization; or you otherwise failed to maintain your nonimmigrant
status, other than through no fault of your own or for technical reasons,
***unless*** you are applying because you are an immediate relative of a
US citizen (parent, spouse, widow, widower or unmarried child under 21
years old), a ***K-1 fiance(e) or K-2 fiance dependent who married the US
petitioner within 90 days of admission*** or an "H" or "I" or special
immigrant [...]. (emphasis all mine).
There is no way whatsoever that that can be misinterpreted as meaning
that a K1 fiance *who married within 90 days* is *not* eligible to file
adjustment of status, even if their authorized stay expired. In fact, it
serves more to confirm that a K1 who has married but let that K1 status
lapse is perfectly entitled to apply for AOS.
--
Targaff
