scrubbedexpat099

Madonna did.

DavidLemon

Madonna did not adopt a 17 year old Brit that had been in the US for 16 years. Just a tad different

scrubbedexpat099

At least have a consultation with another Lawyer.

If you can not evidence your lawful entry even adjustment through marriage would not work.

scrubbedexpat099

Not from an Immigration perspective.

Apfelkuchen

Not really being 'up' on celebrity gossip, I know little of Madonna's case. The smallest amount of googling tells me that it provoked objections from human rights groups on a number of grounds, one of which being the complaint that the baby had been fast-tracked through US immigration because of his adoptive mother's celebrity status. That implies that there is a process to be gone through.

Or perhaps you were just making fun of my lax grammar . I should of course have written 'would be allowed to', rather than 'would be able to'.

scrubbedexpat099

Did she no do it several times? I think it was the issues at the African end that raised eyebrows.

But back to this case:

Basically you have a get out of jail free card until you are 18. After another 2 years you have a 10 year ban. Now there are waivers available but that is going to be tricky with a step mother who adopted you at age 17 ish.

You can not adjust in country, there is one notable exception, if you were inspected on entry then marriage to a USC. You have to show you were inspected, Passport and I 94 would be the common route. But as there is no mention of a SO this seems moot anyway.

Noorah101

Plus, he said she came in on her mother's "passport", sounds like back in 1977 a 5-year old didn't need his/her own passport and visa (or I-94 / I-94W).

So I'm not sure after these many years what she'd have in hand to be able to show she entered with inspection.

Rene

Apfelkuchen

Having now read the INA adoption provisions, it does indeed seem that a petition for an adopted child has to be filed before the child turns 16 (confirming what I thought Nicole meant in post 1).

I'm still confused as to how her adoptive mother got through the adoption process if she (Nicole) was in the US illegally (which we don't know for sure). Is it simply that the adoption and immigration sides of the house operate completely separately? Even then, wouldn't the adoption process have required the presentation of her birth certificate? And wouldn't that have raised questions about her immigration status?

Apfelkuchen

I don't know the exact date of the change, but it was only quite recently that the law stopped allowing UK children to travel on their parents' passports. I got my first passport at 13 (13 years ago) because I was going abroad on a school trip without my parents, but I had been out of the country at least once a year with them up until that age.

EDIT to add: It looks like the change took place in 1998.

scrubbedexpat099

How do you think the tens of millions of undocumented would survive here if the US Gov was so integrated?

sir_eccles

I am seeing slight parallels to the case of Jose Vargas at the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/ma...pagewanted=all

Here's and update:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...mission/40272/

Apfelkuchen

I agree, that seems the likely answer to my question. However, I also see a difference between an illegal immigrant who does nothing to draw attention to him/herself and one who tries to get adopted. One seems more likely to get caught than the other. I would expect adoption to be a fairly thorough process, but perhaps by the time the child is 17 there isn't much of an investigation as he/she will be an adult soon.

Anyway, when the OP is next along she can clear it up. Either the adoption went through without any reference to her immigration status, it was discovered she was an illegal immigrant and it went through anyway, or she wasn't an illegal immigrant at the time of the adoption.

P.S. On Madonna, while the issues on the 'African end' were what drew tabloid attention, according to 'the Internet' human rights organizations also made official protests because it seemed suspicious that the baby got through the US immigration process straight away. Reading INA Section 101(b)(1)(F), it seems likely that the two sets of objections were in fact connected.