She married an American, spent the summer in her native Panama doing research and then was denied re-entry to the States. Link to the story:

http://news.clevescene.com/2007-10-17/news/the-new-mccarthyism/

Check it out.

This goes to show. When all else fails read the instructions. What did her GC app say?

The person doing the story is lying because the problem is obvious. Once she married to a USC, she was no longer eligible for a student visa. Simple as that and it is clearly stated in all USCIS documents. She had to apply for advance parole. So they lie and pretend this is a political issue when its not. For "scholars" these people do not appear to be that intelligent.

OMG

I cannot believe I ditto Michael

4WOW has to answer this thread


What an irresponsible journalist to write that story to try to make it appear political. when the so called RESEARCHER did not do the research. immigrant intent was the issue and then tried to invoke reader sympathy with the mother and sister being turned away for the wedding. (again nothing political, standard procedure) myh favorite part is how "she didnt want to discuss it" NO.. because she knew it was not political and that she hadnt prescribed to the rules after making this big fuss. cover up her incompetence.

Not to mention that was the longest story with jumping all over the place poorest writing I have ever seen. 3 paragraphs to describe the bride and atmosphere. It was grueling to complete the whole article.

This couple... the writer and the editor for giving his blessing on the story are saluted with a big L!


JNEDLY: I dont know what your intent was to bring this article here. please tell us what your opinion was on it

Spot on 4now. Goes to show even the 'educated' immigrants are not that bright. I liked how they tried to paint her as an educated virtuous bride with only the purest of intentions. How dare our border people deny someone of such stature. Oh how terrible. Someone12 please send her some kleenex.

davdah

oh noooooooo...you are summoning someone12 ha ha. you will have to call republicanwriter too. He could have used this one in his other post on immigration reform.

In anyway, the scariest thing is that our government appears to be giving big money to this type of nonimmigrant and paying for education/expenses for "her incredible work"

This is pathetic. hate to see what kind of research she is putting out. oh brother

Sorry to rain on your parade but it appears that Marixa Lasso was either an EB-1 or EB-2 visa holder. The story says: "In 2003, she even secured a special visa reserved only for "aliens of extraordinary ability" — such as baseball players, Hollywood stars, and great minds." Therefore not a "student".

Additionally, although she may have petitioned for permanent residency based on her visa status and her marriage - she isn't required to and the story doesn't mention anywhere that she did. Therefore, again, no need for "advance parole".

It appears that she simply applied for extension of her status as EB-1 or EB-2 holder and was stymied by bureaucracy.

sorry, no rain verbalist. She probably did not apply for residency.. thats the problem as I believe. and then if she applied for extension, it was divulged that she now had immigrant intent because of the marriage.

We will see.. I emailed the editor for the real story

4now - thank you for your comment but I still maintain that she didn't need to apply for residency. My impression is that when someone is eligible to apply it does not mean that he has to. And if she didn't violate her EB-1 visa conditions, there should be no problem extending it.

I heard that the consular section denies the B-1 visas to people who are married to the U.S. citizen but it seemed to me that it was because they wanted to have people processed before entering the U.S. I haven't heard about anyone being actually forced to apply for permanent residency.

In fact, I have a friend who married a girl from New Zealand. They moved there and she's never adjusted her status. As far as I know she never had a problem to come to visit his family in the U.S.

So, unless the lady in question has stated explicitly that she now consider herself a U.S. resident (after the marriage) - I see no reason why her application for extension of visa should have been denied.

Verbalist,
This does not surprise me one bit. I have had several friends denied by the US Embassy or consulate for some of the most ridiculous reasons, some long before 9/11. The incompetence of the staff will embarrass some of the ardent professionals in immigration law.

Of course, some members here will state, "They are the professionals. They are professionals and there is a "good reason" that they were denied."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Hudson,

quote:

Originally posted by Verbalist:
4now - thank you for your comment but I still maintain that she didn't need to apply for residency. My impression is that when someone is eligible to apply it does not mean that he has to. And if she didn't violate her EB-1 visa conditions, there should be no problem extending it.

I heard that the consular section denies the B-1 visas to people who are married to the U.S. citizen but it seemed to me that it was because they wanted to have people processed before entering the U.S. I haven't heard about anyone being actually forced to apply for permanent residency.

In fact, I have a friend who married a girl from New Zealand. They moved there and she's never adjusted her status. As far as I know she never had a problem to come to visit his family in the U.S.

So, unless the lady in question has stated explicitly that she now consider herself a U.S. resident (after the marriage) - I see no reason why her application for extension of visa should have been denied.

It's a matter of opinion, but the article was richly written, substantive, well-researched. It's a matter of focus and it gave justice to its title. We may disagree, but that's how it is nowadays, and there's no other way to put it.

Obviously, the couple didn't file the AOS paperwork - mathematically impossible even if they desired - marriage was in March and the wife traveled outbound in May. I can't imagine these two lovebirds spoiling the magic of their post-nuptial moments with those unglamorous forms, or a starving lawyer, or the insipid Immigration Service bureaucracy - at least, not yet then, can wait. She's certainly a holder of a particular nonimmigrant status (O, P, H, I, Q, etc.) that's still valid, yet her visa stamp was expired. Hence, she had to obtain a fresh nonimmigrant visa stamp for reentry thru consular process. Anyway, she could legally travel, as she normally did before. So, why suddenly she couldn't?

Verbalist, sorry to have your marching boots muddied during the parade (no offense meant, but just for your kind info), EB-1 and EB-2 are not visa types. They're categories (or avenues or processes) by which high-caliber aliens could either self-petition or be petitioned to perform high-end jobs in the US either through "National Interest Waiver" or Laborcert/PERM, with the ultimate goal of gaining permanent residency based on employment (EB or employment-based categories 1 and 2).

I beg to differ. Richly written? Like the one about wild Amish women on their site?

This was nothing more than a poorly written hit piece against our immigration system. A couple things are missing. No one's romance should be justification for bypassing legal process. I don't agree with the idea of no time. They had plenty of time. They knew long before there would be an immigration issue. They should have accounted for that. At least have the smarts to know they don't know and get a lawyer to sort it out for them. Or is her dad with the shotgun in the grooms back removed from the picture?

How about ignorance is not a defense or equal justice under the law? Meaning, just because she is supposibly smart doesn't warrant special treatment. I guess she thought it was benieth them to get in line like everyone else.

There is nothing here. This bozo media outlet just used her status to play to their beliefs. Nothing more.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: davdah,

sorry, but if the OP had participated in the Fulbright program, she would have subject to the 2 yr rule and could not have obtained an Eb1 or EB2 without a waiver (unlikely)...what she probably had was an "O" nonimmigrant visa which is not subject to the 2 year rule...of course, ProudUSC, Explora, Hudson and The W anker knew that, right? (wrong)...and the OP is a whiner who failed to follow our laws...too FN bad.

The article is riddled with inaccuracies, lies and complete disgard for the truth. It is poorly researched and is obviously politically motivated.

THAT being said, I think the United States SHOOULD NOT allow anyone with any connection to any Moslem organization to be allowed into the country. Moslems who are in the US should be given 15 days to renounce the Koran and all forms of terrorism or br sent to a detention camp. The United States should not harbor these terrorists.

Of course, like what I said, it's a matter of readers' diverse opinions or rather people's varying perspectives. See, the article was written for a community publication catering to the young or stay at home moms. The paper even started out as a music publication. Being so, the writer had to proffer her story in a way that it would be read or at least catch the interest of the reader, with the subject on top of her head which is immigration, vis–à–vis her target readership that generally cares less about the topic. She used literary tools such as “imagery” and “anecdotal leads” to evoke the reader’s imagination. It is customary to just leave an article after browsing just a couple of paragraphs as long as the basic “5W’s & How” curiosities based on the title are satisfied. But it’s more of a feature than a news story, that’s why. I’m just curious if the story is about a lady professor who was actually an Al-Qaeda cell that easily seeped through the immigration cracks by scamming the system and the rest of the facts are about ICE raids or planeloads of deportees to El Salvador. I should be on the other side of the debate. Oh well.

Help, where do I go to start a new thread for my
self? re my situation?

http://blogs.clevescene.com/cnotes/2007/10/reader_reads_our_cover_story_d.php



Hmm... I guess my comments were too scathing and head on target.. they never posted mine nor have i ever heard back from the editor on the real story. oh well irresponsible journalsim at its finest

A stay at home mom would not be able to handle the truth.

4Now, go take a look now. I can't beleive it. They posted my comment. (lol). What a bunch of dim bulbs.

I'm taking back what I said about their captive readers. Obviously, they've got none. (Just teasing you, dave).