Ranjini

Thank you for not taking my post amiss, Laird Re-reading I was wondering if I had come across too strongly Now let's hope that Rete is well up on her Cavazos and all that cool stuff. No wait, Folinsky may actually know!

lairdside

It's Mr F I "gleaned" it from through his posts here sometime ago. He cites many interesting BIA rulings and I decided to go and read a few....there are lots of them!

The interim ruling for Cavazos is only 2 pages

The pdf is here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol17/2750.pdf

I wasn't trying to be confusing

Dekka's Angel

I've read Cazavos, after it was posted as a cite, because I am of course intellectually curious about new areas of law and I knew zippity doo dah about immigration law before I was forced to in this K-1 process.

Frankly, a layperson trying to rely on Cazavos without the assistance of competent counsel making the necessary arguments on the layperson's behalf would, IMO, be making a mistake. As I read Cazavos (and admittedly this is *not* with an immigration attorney's eye, but it is with a lawyer's eye) it stands for a general proposition which was applied at the discretion of the court based on then-existing INS policy, where certain equities were found to exist in the particular immigrant's case. I do not read the case as establishing a hard and fast rule of law to be applied in all circumstances of preconceived immigration intent by all immigration judges. (Obviously, Folinskyinla and MattU would know best, since they both practice in this area. But equally obviously, I doubt that either will comment on this issue in this thread for salutary reasons.)

Given that, IMO even mentioning the case's existence to laypeople contemplating entry with preconceived intent who are not already represented by competent immigration counsel is, in my opinion, a slippery slope best not skiied down. (Not to mention, if you're not a lawyer, citing case authority gets dangerously close to practicing law without a license. , though we all know how good and helping a heart posters have in this board community)

As far as the OP, believe me I empathize with your situation for personal reasons, but emphatically second all the well-meaning advice you've been given in this thread to go with the K-3 or K-1. I personally know one person who has gotten away with what you originally proposed, and others know people who have not. But the key phrase to me is "get away with" and whether you really want to begin your new married life trying to "get away with" something you are not supposed to do. As a lawyer, I did not want even the appearance of violating the spirit of the law to hang over my fiance and I, now or in the future. Surely, as an ex-member of the law enforcement community, you understand where folks are coming from.

Rete

Don't know squat about the case references ;-)

I can tell you that the outcome that I referenced can be found with a search of www.google.com / Advance Group Search. I believe the year would be around late '98 but almost sure it was '99. It was one of the posts that was held up to people like Steve and Lisa who did the enter on vwp, marry and stay to adjust as a "no you cannot do that and this is way" things.

It was reported by a sister of the couple involved. The German spouse was removed from the US by the legacy INS.

Rete

lairdside

I didn't refer to Cavazos in reply to the OP's question but rather by way of an explanation of my thinking as to "where I was coming from" re: the case that was noted by Rete.

As for practising law without a licence, I've taken the advice of a friend who is an AILA member regarding that and am currently working with the presidents of LCU (La Communidad Unidad) and Hispanic Services in establishing a non-profit immigration clinic for this area, which is BADLY needed. We do have advising attorney's also.

Rete

Not to quibble but I hate the phrase "get away with" it in regards to this subject matter. I don't see it as pulling something over on the BCIS or that each case is has a foundation of fraudulent intent.

I, as well, have now two friends from Canada who were told by the BCIS to just cross the border, get married and stay to adjust status. And yet, look at all the poor Canuks here who have been denied entry to the US because they have said they were going to visit their fiancees.


It stinks that there is NOTHING something concrete for everyone to rely upon as "scripture" and that each case is handled in the same way; you enter, you marry, you have to return home or you enter, you marry, you can stay to adjust status and with only the criteria of criminal history or medical issues or lack of financial sponsorship the only reasons for denial.

Rete
(Who is going back to the corner to pout in private.)

Dekka's Angel

I think it is an honorable and noble pursuit to help people when they need help, so best of luck to you with the new clinic. And if you give advice about the law to a prospective client under the direct supervision of a licensed attorney, and that advice was given to you to convey to someone by that licensed attorney, it's a no harm no foul. Otherwise, it can be a very serious issue, which is why I mentioned it -- but only gently.

I don't make the assumption of fraudulent intent with regard to all cases of AOS on a VWP or tourist visa, and didn't mean to imply that. There are lots of folks who have no preconceived intent at all, enter at POE disclosing 100% of the truth as they know it at that moment about the nature of their visit -- which to me means also not deliberately withholding a material part of the truth about the purpose of their visit when asked -- and their marriage and subsequent AOS is truly spur of the moment. For them, the law clearly allows AOS and I'm happy for them, genuinely. But where that isn't the case, I don't see how you can conclude but that the person has the intent to deceive BCIS at the POE. And if they do that successfully, it is indeed "getting away with" something.

Would that law actually worked that way. I could retire and make afghans and write potboiler bodice ripper novels for a living

cindyabs

Bottom line is the SAFEST way is to do the visa and the quickest one is most likely (since you're going through TSC) is the K3. Get married, stay in UK and until the k3 is approved.
Interesting that your lady got hassled-I've been flying to the UK for over 4 years and nobody ever said boo to me. I never stayed over 10 days, and once flew over twice in 2 weeks. But our intent for the last almost 3 years was for him to move here. We were very lucky and ignorance is bliss.... he flew over here twice after we were married to visit me for a week. We were unaware that the POE could've turned him back..........

Ranjini

That's very commendable, Liard Now I understand your desire to know more about the immigration process. There's so much you can do by just helping people fill out the necessary forms. I would volunteer my services, if I lived close enough, believe me Could you please post that link to Cavazos again, please?? The one you posted before didn't work. I have heard this case referenced before on this forum. Thanks ....

Haldaman

She was hassled because she had been living here for several periods of some months, though less than six, and the Immigration officers were thinking that she was living here for good and leeching off the state.....in fact she was offered several jobs as a nurse but was denied a work permit because her 27 years experience in the US were not recognised by the nursing registration body....but thats another long story. So she was living entirely on my income.
Our problem may well be with the apparent K3 requirement that I live in the UK till it is approved, we would have to live apart because she has to care for her aged mother. I am 63 and don't want to waste any more time. However I am still researching K3s and there may be more advice from you wonderful experienced people to come !

Mrtravel

Haldaman wrote:
    > Originally posted by MrsLondon
    >
    >>Only legal if unplanned!
    >
    >
    > So how can you prove planning or otherwise?

They can only prove it if you committed fraud in the process.

1. Quit your job since you are moving to the US
2. At the POE, tell them that you have a job, since telling them you are
unemployed might keep you out of the country
3. If they can show this is what happened, that would be a problem for
your AOS.

Ranjini

Liard, the link works fine. I just had to re-install Acrobat Reader. Now I must see what all this Cavazos is all about

meauxna

I can see that with the history of (not) using Immigration, why you would think it's OK for you to enter w/out a visa and live; that's what your USC has been doing in the UK. Should you both want legitimate residency status in each other's country, consider this idea.

If you marry, you can apply through the British Consul in the US for (temporary) Leave to Remain for your new USC wife. Within one day, she receives her visa. She comes over to the UK with you and files her petition with the US Embassy in London (she cannot do this if she enters the UK as a tourist). Once approved, you apply for an Immigrant Visa, presumably get that approved and you enter the US as a Permanent Resident, able to work if you choose, and free to come and go more or less as you will. The whole process takes about 3-4 months and you're together the whole time. Considering your age, finances and families, this makes much more sense to me.

By the way, in case you think there's any more visa options waiting in the woodwork for you, I think we've covered them all now

Haldaman

If you marry, you can apply through the British Consul in the US for (temporary) Leave to Remain for your new USC wife. Within one day, she receives her visa. She comes over to the UK with you and files her petition with the US Embassy in London (she cannot do this if she enters the UK as a tourist). Once approved, you apply for an Immigrant Visa, presumably get that approved and you enter the US as a Permanent Resident, able to work if you choose, and free to come and go more or less as you will. The whole process takes about 3-4 months and you're together the whole time. Considering your age, finances and families, this makes much more sense to me.

That sounds almost TOO simple, considering all the things we have been through! Do you have the numbers of the dreaded forms?

Mrtravel

Haldaman wrote:

    >
    > She was hassled because she had been living here for several periods of
    > some months, though less than six, and the Immigration officers were
    > thinking that she was living here for good and leeching off the
    > state.....

Not really, I think they thought she was living there without going
through the proper procedure. If possible, she should get the legal
status to live there, then file the I-130 in London so you can move here.