todorichb

Hi everyone,
Is there a time limit on how long someone can be "in-status" such as F1? For example, is INS going to come after certain period of time and grab someone who has been here in status for lets say 6-7 years or more, as sign that they have an immigration intent without wanting to return to home country?

Also, I am thinking of potentially going home (Croatia) and applying for a visa to go to medical school in US. I have a full scholarship and a stipend, so funds are no problem. I have never been out of status, but i have been in USA for 1 year in high school and 4 years of college. I also submitted a green card lottery twice, but got nothing. Now, I am afraid that "I made constructive steps toward immigration..." which is the question on the application for F1 visa...what should I answer to that question? Has anyone gone through a similar procedure?
Thanks,
Bozho

Ingo Pakleppa - See Web Site For Email

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:52:34 +0000, todorichb wrote:


    > Hi everyone,
    >
    > Is there a time limit on how long someone can be "in-status" such as
    > F1? For example, is INS going to come after certain period of time
    > and grab someone who has been here in status for lets say 6-7 years
    > or more, as sign that they have an immigration intent without
    > wanting to return to home country?

No, they won't do that. There are people who are legally in the USA as
non-immigrants for more than twenty years.

    > Also, I am thinking of potentially going home (Croatia) and applying
    > for a visa to go to medical school in US. I have a full scholarship
    > and a stipend, so funds are no problem. I have never been out of
    > status, but i have been in USA for 1 year in high school and 4 years
    > of college. I also submitted a green card lottery twice, but got
    > nothing. Now, I am afraid that "I made constructive steps toward
    > immigration..." which is the question on the application for F1
    > visa...what should I answer to that question? Has anyone gone
    > through a similar procedure?

None of that are constructive steps towards immigration. Consulates
actually have specific instructions to not consider the GC lottery (in
most cases, at least) because it is random enough to not show serious
intent.

A constructive step would be more along the lines of buying a home,
getting married, completely giving up your home in Croatia, etc.

BTW, just as an aside: you are probably aware of it already, but as a
medical student on a full scholarship, there is a good chance that the
two-year home residency requirement may apply, and may be very difficult
to get waived (at least if you are using a J-1. Won't be a problem with an
F-1). This requirement could actually help you because it is a pretty
strong point showing that you would return to Croatia.

--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.

Please support H.R. 539, H.R. 832 and S. 1510. More information at
http://www.kkeane.com/lobbyspousal-faq.shtml

Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (always under construction)

My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.

Now with new photos! Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my
new Web site http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.

Sylvia Ottemoeller

"Ingo Pakleppa - see web site for email" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

    > On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:52:34 +0000, todorichb wrote:

    > > Is there a time limit on how long someone can be "in-status" such as
    > > F1? For example, is INS going to come after certain period of time
    > > and grab someone who has been here in status for lets say 6-7 years
    > > or more, as sign that they have an immigration intent without
    > > wanting to return to home country?
    > No, they won't do that. There are people who are legally in the USA as
    > non-immigrants for more than twenty years.
    > > Also, I am thinking of potentially going home (Croatia) and applying
    > > for a visa to go to medical school in US. I have a full scholarship
    > > and a stipend, so funds are no problem. I have never been out of
    > > status, but i have been in USA for 1 year in high school and 4 years
    > > of college. I also submitted a green card lottery twice, but got
    > > nothing. Now, I am afraid that "I made constructive steps toward
    > > immigration..." which is the question on the application for F1
    > > visa...what should I answer to that question? Has anyone gone
    > > through a similar procedure?
    > None of that are constructive steps towards immigration. Consulates
    > actually have specific instructions to not consider the GC lottery (in
    > most cases, at least) because it is random enough to not show serious
    > intent.
    > A constructive step would be more along the lines of buying a home,
    > getting married, completely giving up your home in Croatia, etc.
    > BTW, just as an aside: you are probably aware of it already, but as a
    > medical student on a full scholarship, there is a good chance that the
    > two-year home residency requirement may apply, and may be very difficult
    > to get waived (at least if you are using a J-1. Won't be a problem with an
    > F-1). This requirement could actually help you because it is a pretty
    > strong point showing that you would return to Croatia.

The type of medical education that always obligates a J-1 student status
holder to the 2-year HRR is graduate medical education, not undergraduate
medical education. Most U.S. graduate medical education for foreign medical
graduates must be authorized by J-1 status sponsored by ECFMG (see
http://www.ecfmg.org/). The only exception is that H-1B status can be
obtained for a residency if the person has passed Parts I, II, and III of
USMLE.

I just checked the J-1 skills list for Croatia, and it seems that
practically every specialization entails an obligation to the 2 year HRR
based on the skills list.

So, you should try to get F-1 status. I think you may have a problem
getting an F-1 visa because of the requirement of showing permanent ties to
Croatia, and your spending so much time in the U.S. at a young age. This is
not because of a "time limit," but because of the way that consular officers
think. See http://travel.state.gov/visadenials.html.

todorichb

Yes, I am aware of this fact that I might have difficulty proving ties to the home country, especially after being here for almost 5 years without going back. But, what do you suggest I do...I hate to miss out on the scholarship since I scored in the 99th percentile of the MCAT (admissions test for the medical school), and I desperately want to visit my family back home?
Another idea occurred to me...I have an RN degree (from the way that my college education has been structured), but I have not passed the NCLEX... do you think that wiser way would be to take the nursing test, and then apply for green card via RN-hospital sponsorship before heading to medical school. It is my intention indeed to stay in this country... What do you advise?

catfish_1

Just a follow-up to one of the issues discussed here: about the possible effect of participating in GC lottery on future non-immigrant visa applications such as F1 or B1/B2.

Some of my overcautious friends avoided entering the DV lotteries for this very reason. They were afraid that all entrants that did not win may be recorded and nothing good can come up from such a record showing up in the consulate in the process of future non-immigrant visa applications. I disagreed with them simply because it seemed to me that it was too hard to record all the millions of envelopes. The system seemed messy in general and they were unconfirmed rumors that they couldn't even catch multiple submissions and some people who sent several applications to increase the odds have actually got the Green Cards. I have no basis to know for sure, but it seems possible to me that it was pretty messy.

However, I always thought that the lack of negative consequences was caused NOT by the instructions to the consulate not to consider DV as an intent. To produce such instructions they would need someone really to sit and think about such stuff and analyze whether DV entry is an immigration intent, comparable to simply being unmarried and childless (also a frequently used argument in 214(b) denials). One would need an analyst who could possibly think about the visa applicants favorably in generaal, or at least reasonably. Seems unlikely. Mor likely it was too hard to implement recording and checking for this and I suspected that it would have been implemented otherwise.

Interestingly, about 3 years ago a question about the lottery participation actually appeared for a short time in then current version of DS-156 (US visa application form) at the web site of the US Embassy in Moscow. I remember very well seeing it there. The question was right next to the question about taking any affirmative steps toward the US immigration. This question quickly disappeared from the next version of DS-156.

I viewed this mysterious appearance and quick disappearance of this question as a proof that I was right. They would have loved to know and might have actually happily rejected those who were honest but later dumped the question probably realizing that stories about people who lied "no" would spread making the question pointless for the original purpose and making the consulate look ridiculous in the stories of how one can lie and not be caught.

And here we come to the new electronic submission in DV 2005. Now, it would be much easier to record all participants and check visa applicants against the list. I know that merging databases is less trivial than it seems but having it electronically entered name by name by diligent applicants certainly makes such a task easier.

On the other hand, if the specific instructions for the consulates mentioned by Ingo exist for sure, that may change everything. How certain are you about the existence of these instructions? If they existed, why than this question in DS-156 (that this question was there is a sure thing. I've seen it myself on their web site). Any information would be greatly appreciated,

Thanks,
C.

Ingo Pakleppa - See Web Site For Email

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:59:35 +0000, catfish_1 wrote:


    > Just a follow-up to one of the issues discussed here: about the possible
    > effect of participating in GC lottery on future non-immigrant visa
    > applications such as F1 or B1/B2.
    >
    > Some of my overcautious friends avoided entering the DV lotteries for
    > this very reason. They were afraid that all entrants that did not win
    > may be recorded and nothing good can come up from such a record showing
    > up in the consulate in the process of future non-immigrant visa
    > applications. I disagreed with them simply because it seemed to me that
    > it was too hard to record all the millions of envelopes. The system
    > seemed messy in general and they were unconfirmed rumors that they
    > couldn't even catch multiple submissions and some people who sent
    > several applications to increase the odds have actually got the Green
    > Cards. I have no basis to know for sure, but it seems possible to me
    > that it was pretty messy.

You are absolutely right. These people also committed immigration fraud.

More importantly, it doesn't matter whether the lottery entry is recorded
or not; there is a question about it on the DS-156, so a consulate would
know either way (unless you lied about it, and again committing
immigration fraud). I note that you say this question has disappeared; I
haven't really followed the look of the DS-156 lately. One lawyer advised
me that technically, a lottery entry is an immigration petition, so you
should check "yes" on that question. However, that was years ago, and I
think recent events pretty much went to show that it is not necessary to
do that any more.

    > However, I always thought that the lack of negative consequences was
    > caused NOT by the instructions to the consulate not to consider DV as an
    > intent. To produce such instructions they would need someone really to
    > sit and think about such stuff and analyze whether DV entry is an
    > immigration intent, comparable to simply being unmarried and childless
    > (also a frequently used argument in 214(b) denials). One would need an
    > analyst who could possibly think about the visa applicants favorably in
    > generaal, or at least reasonably. Seems unlikely. Mor likely it was too
    > hard to implement recording and checking for this and I suspected that
    > it would have been implemented otherwise.

No, it indeed was somebody sitting down and explicitly thinking about it.

The memo that I saw (unfortunately, I couldn't find it on short notice,
although I am sure it exists somewhere on the Web) actually explained the
rationale behind this interpretation: unlike normal visa petitions, the
lottery entries have such a low chance of winning that you cannot infer a
definite intent to move to the US. Possibly, a desire, but no more than
that.

Even having won the lottery is not an indication of immigration intent.
The reasoning here is similar: the applicant had no hand in his selection.
Since you can't draw a conclusion about immigration intent from entering
the lottery, his state of mind wouldn't have changed just based on the
pure chance event of being selected.

    > Interestingly, about 3 years ago a question about the lottery
    > participation actually appeared for a short time in then current version
    > of DS-156 (US visa application form) at the web site of the US Embassy
    > in Moscow. I remember very well seeing it there. The question was right
    > next to the question about taking any affirmative steps toward the US
    > immigration. This question quickly disappeared from the next version of
    > DS-156.

I think that must have been in response to this memo I mentioned.

--
Remember, I am strictly a layperson without any legal training. I encourage
everybody to seek competent legal counsel rather than relying on usenet
newsgroups.

Please support H.R. 539, H.R. 832 and S. 1510. More information at
http://www.kkeane.com/lobbyspousal-faq.shtml

Please visit my new FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com (always under construction)

My email address in usenet posts is now invalid for spam protection. See
my Web site for information on how to contact me.

Please feel free to enjoy some of my photographs at my Web site
http://www.ingopakleppa.com ! Comments are welcome.