Intending to change tourist status

[Houston]

IE, you know the law but maybe (not to say obviously) the person who asked the question does not and could take that joke seriously.
I'd say the individual should consult with an attorney.

[Antifascist1]

BTW, there is no law that prohibits one from divorsing and dumping his/her spouse and children, then going out to date with someone else and later marry to that other person.

And if the future spouse happen to be USC, then GC can be applied for and received by Alien in 6 months. These are facts.

And NOBODY has the right to question the right of any person to break up with his/her family and decide to date and build new family with someone else.

It is rather a MORAL and PERSONAL issue.
"FRAUD" is something else.


P.S. If someone takes the joke seriously then how could such person understand what does "serious" really mean?

[Houston]

In the matter of Blas, "when the alien and his wife have been living apart for many years, the marriage exists solely in name.... the alien visits the United States, enters into a marriage with a United States citizen and becomes the beneficiary of an approved petition, the application is not likely to have any problems. Here the respondent's scheme precludes the favorable exercise of discretion...." (in the case of an alien who divorced his wife to very quickly enter into a marriage with a U.S. citizen to obtain immigration benefits).

[Antifascist1]

Forget about OP.

I was speaking in general, about the law and it's application (addressing your post, not OP's).
If you know the law - then you know what I am talking about.
If you don't - then there is no point of continuing it any further.

[Houston]

In general, the USCIS is not a specialist in love and relationships. There's several decisions reversing USCIS denials based on the "potential" of a relationship. For an application to be approved the relationship must be "valid" at the time it was conceived. However, when it comes to fraud, USCIS is aware of schemes and other activities perpetrated by applicants seeking specific benefits. A relationship per-se will not be judged beyond certain parameters, it's the reasons behind such relationship that could affect the outcome, as explained in Blas.

[Antifascist1]

Go study the case-precedents, Houston.

You must be one of those "germanic" dummies - judging from the way you expose your thoughts.
Evolutionary/culturally you guys are too young a species and didn't develop yet the level of required intellectual/cultural capacity to grasp the fullness , the depth and the width of reality.

Well, here is ME, a man of thousands of years Old Civilization.
Someone who could teach you volumes, only you will never get it (Even that last sentence you will understand in your own specific way - far from the meaning I inject it witrh).


Now, as far as relationships and actions go.

Let me give you one example (forget the OP):


1. A subject X comes to country Y. With spouse Z and kids (A, B.C).
Q: How is their relationship by the time they arrive? (Keep guessing).

2. A month or two after arriving to Y, X or Z dates someone new.

3. X (or Z) decides to build new family/relationship, divorces the original partner and marries a new one.

4. They act according to their own personall will.

Now, WHO is USCIS (or Guatemalan IS, or Japanese IS, or Equadoran IS ) to tell the man/woman "you have committed a fraud because you divorced your wife/husband and married a new spouse"?
There is no such right or grounds to accuse anyone of fraud unless fraud is perpetrated.
And if you spend just a little time and read dozens and dozens of case-precedents and rulings, you will find how great is the number of cases to support what I state here.

The issue, as I stated earlier, is INDIVIDUAL in each instance , MORAL and PERSONAL in essence.


Regards,
IE

[Houston]

And who was the IJ to say exactly that to Mr. Blas? Who was the BIA to affirm the IJ opinion? What's done is done and AOS is a matter of discretion.
What the Japanese IS does is irrelevant here, it's what USCIS does that matters. I'm not referring to some historic background in general, but to one particular case already decided by BIA and quoted many times over the past.

[Antifascist1]

Each case is specific and IDIVIDUAL.
I haven't read the case of Bias.
I can only assume that someone has perpetrated a fraud and IJ ruled against it.
But that was one specific case. There are dozens of other cases where IJ ruled in favor of applicants.

Mind you:
USCIS is publicly funded (by taxpayers) government organization.
It's duty is to serve public.
It's accountable before Congress, law and regulations , just as any other entity or person in US.
It operates under the supreme authority of US Constitution.
It can't arbitrarily decide or just do as it wishes.
In that respect, USCIS is different from Guatemalan or Mexican and many other countries IS:
USCIS is American entity, subject to US Constitution and you should know perfectly well what it means.

Now, here in US we have what we call HUMAN RIGHTS.
Very alien concept to states of Colombia, Cuba
and such, but very important in US.

Now, it's a RIGHT of person to divorce and marry as he/she pleases.
Noone here in US can deny such right to anyone.
Noone!
If you disagree with me - then you must be smoking something.


This being said, as I see, you are subconsciously a barbaric human being, a man of barbaric instincts.
In your barbaric worldview everything is about "fraud", "fear" and "punishment".
But in somewhat HIGHER levels, on levels of HIGHER human beings (such as the case with Ancient Budhists , for instance), it was NOT a question of FEAR, PUNISHMENT ,REWARD and such, but only a MORAL, PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL issue.

You shall never understand what I am speaking of. You are a specie of lower order. Your brain has no capacity to grasp the concepts that I can absorb so easily in a snap of the finger.

Regards,
IE

[Houston]

Why don't you read Blas and stop the name-calling? If you don't agree with that was said in Blas, then take it with the BIA. A person has the right to marry whoever that person wants, true. But the right to live in the U.S. is a priviledge, not a right given to the alien upon marriage to a citizen.

[Antifascist1]

Why don't you read what I write instead of projecting whatever is in your own mind?

Did I say I disagree with what was said in Blas?

Or did I rather say that "I can only assume that someone has perpetrated a fraud and IJ ruled against it"?
Can you distinguish between two?

Next, did I say that Alien has "the right to live in the U.S." and did I say anything about "priviledge"?

Or did I say that it's INHERENT RIGHT OF HUMAN BEING TO DIVORCE AND MARRY WHOM HE/SHE PLEASES.
And that in US NO ONE is above supreme authority of US Constitution.

Can you distinguish one sentence from another?

What is your IQ?


Do you distinguish patterns and details at all, or is it all "grey mess" in your head?

How horrible it is if you are planning to enter the field of Law.

I feel sorry for your clients, whoever they might be.

[Houston]

It's alright, discussion and disagreements are important parts of any democratic society.
You're absolutely right, nobody in the U.S. is above the Constitution!
PS: I already stated that I DO NOT come here to give people legal advice of any kind, just to post my opinions like most others do.

[Antifascist1]

Yes, I know I am absolutely right!

And I do beleive, as you do, that discussion and disagreements are important parts of democratic society.

Best Regards,
IE