Tracym

I wasn't inferring, I'd just say so. We certainly did use different words. You were giving him a lecture on witchhunts and dishonest fiancee's. I was not.

I feel very sorry for the guy, you apparently do not. nuff said.

Just Jenney

Tracy, this isn't the first time you've misconstrued my comments, and I'm sure it won't be the last. That's the disadvantage of reading something versus hearing it. However, I've already told you that your inference was incorrect, but you still don't believe me, so I'm not sure what else you'd like me to say.

Now you're assuming that I don't feel sorry for the OP. I haven't said I do and I haven't said I don't. I think you assume this because I don't hold your opinion that his fiancee is just an innocent victim in all of this. In any case, he didn't ask us to tell him whether we felt sorry for him, though -- he asked for advice and opinions about his situation, which is what I provided. I didn't know I was breaking some moral code by not specifically stating, "I feel very sorry for you." Of course, now if I say how sorry I feel for him, you'll just accuse me of being insincere. So again, I'm not sure what else you'd like me to say.

~ Jenney

Tracym

Wow. That's sure a lot of stuff I hadn't, and probably wouldn't, say.

Yes, sometimes stuff comes out different typed than said. So lets just let it go, fair enough?

Just for the record, imo, she's not an innocent victim. Yes she made a mistake. But I still feel sorry for them, very much so.

[email protected]

The 3/10 years ban rule may not be automatic if the I-94 is annoted
with "D/S".

If the I-94 is annoted with a specific date, the 3/10 years ban rule
will apply automatically when she leaves the US.


Ideally, she would get the HRR waived and then she could proceed with
an adjustment of status.

More info: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/info/info_1288.html (if I
were you, I would look into both the "No Objection Statement" and the
"Exceptional hardship to a United States citizen [...] spouse [...] of
an exchange visitor"). It ain't going to be easy


PS to all (stop seeing evil everywhere): If she wanted to marry a US
citizen at all cost, why wouldn't she have given a shot with her boss
who wanted her to be "more than an employee"?

Just Jenney

If I'm not mistaken, all J1 visa holders' I-94 cards are marked "D/S" upon entry. However, unless the program date on her DS-2019 has been extended by her J1 program sponsor -- which, considering they fired her, seems unlikely -- then it doesn't matter. It's the date on the DS-2019 that USCIS goes by, not what's on the I-94.

Maybe she did and it backfired. Maybe she wanted someone who had more to offer her than just a job as a housekeeper. Maybe the boss isn't a US citizen. Who knows? After all, he's taking her word for it about why she was fired -- or that she was fired at all.

The bottom line is that this scenario has a lot of red flags, not the least of which is the fact that she wasn't upfront with him about her illegal status until AFTER she got caught. They dated for a few months, went on a trip together, got engaged, returned home and two days later she was detained. Was she ever planning on telling him about her situation? Was she going to wait until after they'd married before giving him the details? Would he only have found out when it all went to pot, months and thousands of (his) dollars later, when her AOS was denied?

He really seems to have genuinely thought she was doing everything above board, and she let him think that. For that, I don't have much sympathy for her at all. From the OP's most recent comments, it looks as if he has begun reconciling the facts with what he thought was the truth and is willing to let her go. So obviously, what we've been saying isn't too far off the mark or else he would have taken great offense to it.

~ Jenney

[email protected]

On May 26, 8:00 pm, Jenney & Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, all J1 visa holders' I-94 cards are marked "D/S"
> upon entry. However, unless the program date on her DS-2019 has been
> extended by her J1 program sponsor -- which, considering they fired
> her, seems unlikely -- then it doesn't matter. It's the date on the DS-
> 2019 that USCIS goes by, not what's on the I-94.
>
> Maybe she did and it backfired. Maybe she wanted someone who had more to
> offer her than just a job as a housekeeper. Maybe the boss isn't a US
> citizen. Who knows? After all, he's taking her word for it about why she
> was fired -- or that she was fired at all.
>
> The bottom line is that this scenario has a lot of red flags, not the
> least of which is the fact that she wasn't upfront with him about her
> illegal status until AFTER she got caught. They dated for a few
> months, went on a trip together, got engaged, returned home and two
> days later she was detained. Was she ever planning on telling him
> about her situation? Was she going to wait until after they'd married
> before giving him the details? Would he only have found out when it
> all went to pot, months and thousands of (his) dollars later, when her
> AOS was denied?
>
> He really seems to have genuinely thought she was doing everything above
> board, and she let him think that. For that, I don't have much sympathy
> for her at all. From the OP's most recent comments, it looks as if he
> has begun reconciling the facts with what he thought was the truth and
> is willing to let her go. So obviously, what we've been saying isn't too
> far off the mark or else he would have taken great offense to it.
>
> ~ Jenney
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

J1 visa holders' I-94 cards are TYPICALLY marked "D/S" - but sometimes
not (e.g. if the passport expires before the DS-2019, then the I-94
will likely have the date of the passport expiration - and the J-1
holder will have to extend his/her status once he/she has a new
passport).

And it does matter: With "D/S", she would still be subject to the ban,
but it is not automatic, the ban would only be effective once she has
been informed by USCIS that she is subject to the ban - unless and
until that occurs, she wouldn't be subject to the ban. More:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.v...ed&q=D%2FS+ban



To the OP: that may not be your first choice option, but if she indeed
has the "D/S" annotation on her I-94, she could leave, comply with the
two year HRR - and then come back with another visa.

Or, let her know that you want to live with her regardless and that
you therefore want to spend the rest of your life in the Indonesia
with her (aww). Stick with this scenario, and see how she reacts ; if
she is really in love with you, she should be fine with it. If she was
with you solely to gain permanent residence in the US, well, she
likely will appear to be less interested about maintaining a
relationship with you.

ian-mstm

Damn... I like the way your mind works!

Ian

Just Jenney

But seeing that D/S stands for "Duration of Status" and her J1 status was finished in February 2006 when she was fired from her J1 job, I don't see how that would work. Unless the J1 employer either extended her J1 status or transferred her J1 status to a different employer -- both of which sound extremely unlikely, based on what the OP's told us -- then the only thing that makes sense is she would incur a 10-year ban once she steps foot outside the US.

Good suggestion. Give her the option and see what she says/does. Her initial reaction will speak volumes.

~ Jenney

[email protected]

On May 27, 11:39 am, Jenney & Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > On May 26, 8:00 pm, Jenney & Mark <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > If I'm not mistaken, all J1 visa holders' I-94 cards are marked
> > > "D/S"
> > > upon entry. However, unless the program date on her DS-2019 has been
> > > extended by her J1 program sponsor -- which, considering they fired
> > > her, seems unlikely -- then it doesn't matter. It's the date on the
> > > DS-
> > > 2019 that USCIS goes by, not what's on the I-94.
>
> > > Maybe she did and it backfired. Maybe she wanted someone who had
> > > more to
> > > offer her than just a job as a housekeeper. Maybe the boss isn't a
> > > US
> > > citizen. Who knows? After all, he's taking her word for it about why
> > > she
> > > was fired -- or that she was fired at all.
>
> > > The bottom line is that this scenario has a lot of red flags, not
> > > the
> > > least of which is the fact that she wasn't upfront with him about
> > > her
> > > illegal status until AFTER she got caught. They dated for a few
> > > months, went on a trip together, got engaged, returned home and two
> > > days later she was detained. Was she ever planning on telling him
> > > about her situation? Was she going to wait until after they'd
> > > married
> > > before giving him the details? Would he only have found out when it
> > > all went to pot, months and thousands of (his) dollars later, when
> > > her
> > > AOS was denied?
>
> > > He really seems to have genuinely thought she was doing everything
> > > above
> > > board, and she let him think that. For that, I don't have much
> > > sympathy
> > > for her at all. From the OP's most recent comments, it looks as if
> > > he
> > > has begun reconciling the facts with what he thought was the truth
> > > and
> > > is willing to let her go. So obviously, what we've been saying isn't
> > > too
> > > far off the mark or else he would have taken great offense to it.
>
> > > ~ Jenney
>
> > > --
> > > Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > J1 visa holders' I-94 cards are TYPICALLY marked "D/S" - but sometimes
> > not (e.g. if the passport expires before the DS-2019, then the I-94
> > will likely have the date of the passport expiration - and the J-1
> > holder will have to extend his/her status once he/she has a new
> > passport).
>
> > And it does matter: With "D/S", she would still be subject to the ban,
> > but it is not automatic, the ban would only be effective once she has
> > been informed by USCIS that she is subject to the ban - unless and
> > until that occurs, she wouldn't be subject to the ban. More:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.visa.us.marriage-
> > based/search?group=alt.visa.us.marriage-based&q=D%2FS+ban
>
> > To the OP: that may not be your first choice option, but if she indeed
> > has the "D/S" annotation on her I-94, she could leave, comply with the
> > two year HRR - and then come back with another visa.
>
> > Or, let her know that you want to live with her regardless and that
> > you therefore want to spend the rest of your life in the Indonesia
> > with her (aww). Stick with this scenario, and see how she reacts ; if
> > she is really in love with you, she should be fine with it. If she was
> > with you solely to gain permanent residence in the US, well, she
> > likely will appear to be less interested about maintaining a
> > relationship with you.
>
> But seeing that D/S stands for "Duration of Status" and her J1 status
> was finished in February 2006 when she was fired from her J1 job, I
> don't see how that would work. Unless the J1 employer either extended
> her J1 status or transferred her J1 status to a different employer --
> both of which sound extremely unlikely, based on what the OP's told us
> -- then the only thing that makes sense is she would incur a 10-year ban
> once she steps foot outside the US.
>
> Good suggestion. Give her the option and see what she says/does. Her
> initial reaction will speak volumes.
>
> ~ Jenney
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I totally agree on the fact that she is out of status.

I totally agree that she is subject to the 10 year ban.

I totally agree that the ban makes sense. I raised the fact that the
1997 law that created the ban also created an aditional administrative
step for the ban to be effective for I-94s annotated "D/S". Unless and
until that step has occured, the ban is not in place (as per the 1997
law)

All I was saying was that this ban is not automatic - as such, the ban
would only be effective when she would be informed by USCIS. A visa
cannot be denied based on the ban unless and until she has been
informed by USCIS then the ban is effective.

[email protected]

From: http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news729.htm

"A . Duration of Status Cases: Although most non-immigrants are
admitted for a specified period of time, students, exchange visitors,
information media representatives ("I" visa holders), and holders of
certain diplomatic visas are usually admitted for "duration of
status" (D/S). An alien admitted for "duration of status" will begin
to accrue unlawful presence only if either:

* an Immigration Judge (IJ) finds the alien has violated status and is
excludable/deportable/removable, or
* the INS, in the course of adjudicating an application for a benefit
(e.g., extension of stay or change or adjustment of status),
determines that a status violation has occurred. "

That being said, USCIS may have putten the ban in place after denying
the adjustment of status - but the OP didn't specify that

[email protected]

From: http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news729.htm

Sorry, the following section is more appropriate:

"D. Alien Admitted for D/S Who Violates Status:

(I) Alien admitted on a student visa for duration of status, drops out
of school day after arrival, takes up unauthorized employment, departs
ten years later without ever having been found to have violated status
by INS or an IJ: no unlawful presence accrued, not subject to 9B. In
addition, 222(g) does not apply because there was no formal finding of
a status violation by INS or an IJ. (see Ref D Septel on 222(g)).

(II) Alien admitted for duration of status, violates status, e.g., by
working without authorization, is out of status for any period of
time, applies for a change of status (COS), which INS denies on the
ground that alien was out of status. Unlawful presence begins to
accrue on the date of the denial. The alien departs voluntarily on his
own prior to commencement of removal proceedings 180 days or less
after INS decision: not subject to 9B because alien did not accrue
more than 180 days of unlawful presence after INS decision; however,
alien is subject to 222(g).

(III) Same facts as (II) but alien requests voluntary departure, which
INS grants 180 days or less after the denial of COS, and the alien
departs within the time granted: not subject to 9B because alien did
not accrue more than 180 days of unlawful presence; however, alien is
subject to 222(g).

(IV) Same facts as (II), but INS grants V/D more than 180 days but
less than one year after the denial of COS, and the alien departs
within the time granted: subject to three-year bar of 9B1, and to
222(g).

(V) Same facts as (II), but removal proceedings are instituted after
INS's denial of COS, IJ agrees that alien violated status and grants V/
D (with alternate order of removal) 180 days or less after the denial
of COS: not subject to 9B (period between INS decision to deny COS and
IJ's grant of V/D counts as unlawful presence, but period was less
than 181 days, and grant of V/D is considered by INS to be a period of
stay authorized by the Attorney General for 9B purposes); alien is,
however, subject to 222(g).

(VI) Same facts as (V), but IJ issues V/D order more than 180 days but
less than one year after INS decision: not subject to 9B (although
more than 180 days of unlawful presence accrued, three-year bar does
not apply because alien did not depart before commencement of removal
proceedings and ten-year bar does not apply because alien did not
accrue at least one year of unlawful presence). 222(g) applies because
INS and IJ found status violation.

(VII) Same facts as (V), but IJ issues V/D order one year or more
after INS decision: subject to ten-year bar of 9B2 because one-year-
plus period between INS denial of COS and IJ grant of V/D counted as
unlawful presence. 222(g) also applies.

(VIII) Alien admitted on student visa for duration of status, drops
out of school the next day, takes up unauthorized employment, stays
ten years, is put in deportation proceedings, is found to have
violated status but is simultaneously granted voluntary departure, and
departs before date specified in V/D order: no unlawful presence
accrued, not subject to 9B because "unlawful presence" clock did not
start to run until IJ finding and has immediately suspended by V/D
order. 222(g) applies, however.

(IX) Same facts as (VIII), except alien does not depart until seven
months after the date specified in V/D order: not subject to 9B
(unlawful presence of seven months accrued, but three-year bar
inapplicable because departure occurred after commencement of removal
proceedings). 222(g) applies, however."

Also, it seems that the "unlawful presence" clock doesn't start until
USCIS / Immigration Judge finding.


Disclosure:
I'm not an attorney and I don't even play one on TV

[email protected]

222(g) is not much of a big a deal:

UNDER INA 222(G), IF AN ALIEN OVERSTAYS ON A NONIMMIGRANT VISA, THAT
VISA IS AUTOMATICALLY VOIDED. IN ADDITION, THE ALIEN MUST APPLY FOR
FUTURE NIV'S IN HIS/HER COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY.

[email protected]

To come back to your original question, I believe that the "No
objection" letter is the easiest way to go, provided that the
Indonesian government cooperates.

[email protected]

You may find this link useful: http://www.ssoft.co.kr/Immigration/i...apter_24.htm#H.
Waivers of Foreign Home Residency Requiremen

no-spam

a lot of good advice!
I'm guessing your lawyer is doing all they can trying to get a State Department Advisory Opinion for your wife to say it was a mistake and she didn't have the HRR after all. Other than that, you don't have much hope. Maybe the lawyer can wrangle just a 3 year ban instead of 10, but you'll be lucky.