Scott

first of all, sorry... I'm sure this subject has been beat to death
already. But I still don't know what to do.

USC man and brazilian woman are marrying in u.s. in one week. she is
at the end of her 6 months tourist visa stay. we have just assumed
that she would stay while processing AOS. But while researching how
quickly we need to file the paperwork I have come across all of these
dire warnings to use the K3 process instead of her staying and AOS.

My question is simply:

Do we have any statistics on how many people who married on tourist
visa were actually denied AOS because they were judged to have intent
to remain in the u.s. at their time of entry to the u.s.? For that
matter, do we even have any idea of the number of denials for any
reason?

I believe that I understand the issues involved, but I just don't have
any objective, factual data on which to judge our risk of denial if she
stays.

Whether our arguments will sound convincing during the interview is not
what I'm trying to measure right now. I'm just trying to get to the
source of the fear that pervades some websites.

thanks in advance,
scott
LA

meauxna

lol, google "Udall".


quick edit to add: I'm not starting anything here. Mr Udall brought the dangers of this method to the attention of the internet discussion group community.

ian-mstm

I'm not sure any statistics are publicly available.


If statistics exist, they are probably USCIS' closely guarded secret.


I don't think statistics are needed for this because there is no guarantee that you will not the the 1 of 10,000,000 that gets caught. The source of the fear is the risk of denial and the subsequent ban from the US if it is determined that you had immigrant intent when you crossed the border as a tourist. There are two questions to ask here: 1) When push comes to shove, how can you demonstrate that you didn't have immigrant intent? and 2) Do you feel lucky? Well... do ya?

Ian

Rete

The issue of intent at the POE when she entered has everything to do with this. What type of visa did she use to enter the US?

scrubbedexpat099

But often it seems the question is never asked.

Is there a risk - yes

Is it significant - no - just see how many refusals you can find, very, very few.

Will it be of consequence in your case - no idea

Rete

To me, that is the true ten foot pole issue.

Noorah101

My motto is always "better safe than sorry". Therefore, if I were in your situation, I wouldn't stay. But that's just me.

Rene

Matthew Udall

WTF?

I've certainly pointed out the problem that can happen at the POE and that many just don't seem to understand the difference between “that” problem and what options one might have once one has entered. Many mistakenly confuse the risk at the POE with what options might be available after entry.

So I guess I just don't understand why you are mentioning my name and attributing something to me that I don't believe is warranted. Please clarify.

scrubbedexpat099

I would have thought may here do understand the difference. Getting here is hurdle 1, changing you mind and adjusting hurdle 2.

It always amused me that behind closed doors that most attorneys seem to recommend, suggest, mention, whatever the enter, change your mind and adjust route.

But to be fair to the OP there is nothing in his post to suggest that this was the intent on entry.

PS This is no way is meant to suggest that you do the same.

To the OP, I would not be surprised if you saw an attorney, or several, they said that he had never had one turned down for this reason, seems very rare.

Scott

thanks all for weighing in...

I just don't come across large quantities of anecdotes about being
denied - or even any, so far. If it were happening very often I would
expect those who were denied to be sending loud warnings out to the
vast online visa community. (It seems a talkative community to me -
when things are good, bad or just moving along.) And I would expect
that there are some who are pretty obvious candidates for this brand of
denial - for example quiting their job, selling their car and getting
married 4 weeks after entry. We should at least be hearing from them.
Others who are not so clearly "intentional" wouldn't seem in such
danger, if the obvious cases are being denied.

I don't doubt that there is risk in staying. But I suspect most
couples would have a hard time "proving" their intention at POE to
return to their home country. And maybe that is why, (if it is true),
we don't see more denials on these grounds.

We may use the K-3 anyway. But I'd sure like to know now if the actual
denial rate is .0001%

For your curiosity:
Met online.
She already had 10-year tourist visa. Had traveled extensively as
model for years. Had lived in various countries as a tourist for up to
3 months with friends several times before.
Visited here for 3 months of the 6 months granted her on entry.
Returned home for 2 months.
Visited here for last 6 months.
Modeling career meant no steady job to quit. moved around alot and no
real estate to sell. Doesn't drive so no car to sell. Just lived
footloose and traveled or worked agency jobs all the time. Spending
that kind of time abroad was normal. Until we fell in love and she
stayed longer this time.
Wedding is planned for next week - a week before current 6 months ends.

Rete

I believe your name was given as a tool for searching (sorry Meauxna for answering in your stead) is because whenever this subject matter is approached on the marriage-based forum, you are quick to post your insight. This has been from the very start. So one need only search for "Udall" and/or "ten foot pole" (which is a term I used to describe it much later in the discussions) to find hundreds of threads dealing with the subject matter.

However, the OP asked specifically: "I'm just trying to get to the
source of the fear that pervades some websites." in regards as to why the option of adjusting status after arriving in the US with a tourist and/or under the VWP is not a subject which can be spoken of freely and rationally without argument.

Quite honestly, you are the reason why this subject matter is a no-no on this forum. It is the free of your wrath and the continual flaming that is attached to this subject matter which has made us here and other forums very leery of answering this question.

Rete

Matthew Udall

You are entitled to your opinion (that you expressed in your last paragraph), but I don’t agree with it.

I also think you are incorrect about what the OP was asking. He was asking about the dire warnings he’s read that indicate she should go home and get a K-3 instead of adjusting. He talks about the risk of staying and filing for adjustment. Your “interpretation” (concerning what he was asking about) that you gave after his quoted statement above seems to be just that, your “interpretation”. He mentions the “risks” about adjusting and those risks being discussed on websites. In his post he doesn’t mention the issue of the risk at the POE.

Now when it comes to your “interpretation” of his post about the discussion of what can happen at the POE, one could just as easily (and perhaps even more appropriately) search under PG’s name, or perhaps “clean entry”. It was the “clean entry” crowd that was the genesis of “that” discussion in the first place. There are many appropriate search terms to find these discussions and many participants had things to say about it (and I’m referring to the risk “at” the POE here).

I didn’t come up with the “ten foot pole” term now used as a shorthand device to describe the topic, I didn’t mention the dangers of “conspiracy” for recommending people do this at the POE, and I’m certainly not the only person or attorney to weigh in on this subject.

And my discussion about the risk at the POE is separate from the issue of what options one might have after entering the U.S. I think I’ve been pretty clear about that in my postings (and please find even one posting of mine where I’ve told someone already here to depart the U.S. for a K-3 visa), and my reading of the OP’s post shows he’s focusing on options “after” entry, not on the ten foot pole subject.

So, did you and Mo honestly misread the OP’s question (as far as subject matter is concerned), or perhaps don’t understand the difference between the issues of risks at the POE vs. options one might have after entry? Or did you understand both, but this was just an easy way to get in a jab?

Folinskyinla

Hey:

That is the issue that **I** discussed and have nicknamed the 10-foot pole.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he is asking for figures to make a risk/benefit analysis which may, or may not, involve a violation of the law. That is up to them.

Matthew Udall

Yeah, but lucky for you they don't have a chip on their shoulder against you. You should do what you can to keep it that way. It’s not fun.

Folinskyinla

As attorneys, Matt and I are aware of the "10 foot pole" -- OP's questions are good ones -- but they are not the type which should be discussed on-line for all the world to see.

As a tangential note -- many years ago, Ford Motor Company manufactured a car called the Pinto which had the potential of explosive performance if rear ended. There was an easy and cheap way of protecting against this possibe explosion [when I say cheap, something like $4 or some such]. FMC did a risk/benefit analysis -- the cost of preventing this known problem as oppossed at to potential liability for future accidents. FMC figured it was cheaper to put out an unsafe car and pay for future lawsuits. In the Grimshaw case, the jury was not amused and assesses punitive damages of $125 million [reduced by the judge to $3.5 million]

I know this is tangential -- but just a way of indicating there can be legal danger in risk/benefit analysis on legal issues.