jeffreyhy

Arrggghhh - the red herring swims again.

Intent to marry is fine!

Intent to marry is not an immigration issue!

The issue is intent to immigrate!

Regards, JEff

samchico

Ah yes, you're quite right Jeffrey, thanks for the correction

S Folinsky

I'm reminded of a very old joke about the difference between "unlawful" and "illegal." The first is something that is against the law. The other is a sick bird.

That said, the issue is a complicated one. Do people here on VWP obtain LPR via marriage adjustment? Yes, they do. The law is pretty clear that "pre-conceived intent" is a an adverse negative factor. The status of "immediate relative" is a positive factor which should outweigh the pre-conceived intent. "Fraud" or "misrepresentation" is not just an adverse factor -- it is a bar to adjustment. Now, what is the difference between PCI and fraud? It is different -- but it has been often noted that the minions of the Dark Forces don't get it.

Have people been the subject of a Royal FUBAR when adjusting from a VWP. You bet.

Also, there is the issue of publicly advising people to use the VWP to serve as the "visa express." This can raise issues of conspiracy and 'aiding and abetting' and the law is quite frightening. And, yes, these issues have been raised in legal contexts -- usually in tax dodges, but it can be a cherry on an immigration prosecution.

If a person should file for adjustment while on VWP and the application is denied, the remedies can be succinctly described: none.

Wonderful things can happen. But so can shit. Just saying.

ian-mstm

No one has suggested otherwise. However, the intent to marry isn't the issue... it's the intent to stay that'll get you into trouble. That said, even if you had no intent to stay you still have to prove that to an officer if the officer thinks otherwise. So, how do you prove you had no intent to stay when you entered the US?

Ian

samchico

Well in my case it was easy. I still had a whole life, house, car, banking accounts, friends, job etc, in the UK (that was a huge mess to eventually sort out from abroad I have to say). However my immigration officer never actually asked. He was more interested in the online printing service we used for our little photo booklet hehe.

ian-mstm

I fully understand that you left stuff behind... but how would you prove you didn't intend to stay?

Ian

sir_eccles

This is the most important lesson to take from this thread.

S Folinsky

The other lesson is that posters who encourage or recommend "visa express" are in some danger if someone in the Dark Forces decides to "do something about it."

Don't think it can't happen.

samchico

I'm not recommending or encouraging anything. I'm just sharing my story.

Like most people who come here on the VWP with no intention of immigrating, we do have the AOS option open to us and we are legally able to use that option. Anyone doing this absolutely needs to know their responsibilities and rights and risks and certainly needs good legal advice.

Sam

samchico

It's not about proving intent to stay though is it? (That's a genuine question not a rhetorical one). Surely one needs to prove that there was no intent to seek to immigrate? I supposed it helped in my case that I didn't even know my husband until I'd already been here some time. It can be pretty difficult to prove or disprove intent, one can only present the truth as fully as possible. Hopefully the truth will be compelling

samchico

Agreed. It's certainly not an option for the risk adverse!

jeffreyhy

What was her name - Alvina?

Regards, JEff

jeffreyhy

No, it isn't. It's about proving intent to not stay. Definitely. This is exactly the problem, should the case officer decide to pursue the subject. Which they are supposed to do, but often do not.But when they do the fun begins. Regards, JEff

ian-mstm

I agree... it's about proving intent to not stay. I'll ask again - how do you prove you didn't intend to stay? Answer = you can't... ever!

Sometimes you get lucky... sometimes the shit hits the fan!

Ian

fatbrit

I'm not sure I accept your frequent argument that it's impossible to improve intent as a reason to shy away from the VWP express. Proof of intent is required for success in many criminal and civil trials, and those who have this burden of proof frequently overcome it with ease. Whilst the concept of proving intent may indeed flummox a layperson, a professional can manage it in his or her sleep.

In our case here, there is no recourse to the courts, so there is no standard of proof required to overcome this burden. The officer could just as equally ask you to stand on your head as prove your intent. As noted by accounts of the process on this forum, officers do not directly place this specific burden on the interviewee.

Surely the argument against adjusting status is that there is no judicial overview of the process. Your argument, relying on the fact that a layperson does not understand how to craft a defence on lack of intent, seems rather hollow to me.