Preconceived Intent

U

US of A

Registered Users (C)
Does the filing of GC/AOS(I-485) for parents in US considered as preconceived intent to immigrate and result in AOS being denied?

I'm not saying all who have filed (and filing in future) AOS and approved came here with such intent. They might have came to visit and later decided to stay with their childrens.
 
There was an instruction given to adjudicators to use their discretion to generally treat the immigrant intent cases favorably if the beneficiary applied as an Immediate Relative of a US citizen. So they generally won't deny the case if it was not blatant.

However, it's not so nice when it comes to applications for visas. They deny numerous visas every day for parents and spouses and children of citizens because they suspect the people will try to file AOS after entering with the visa. And the more people who actually file AOS after entering as a tourist, the more the others from the same country will be denied visas.
 
I agreed with Jackolantern. There was operations intructions as stated in service policy which states it doesn't effect the IR of USC.

I found these documents while searching for similar qns. that I posted yesterday. Btw some punks flammed me giving BS answers saying all parents on visitor visa and filing for AOS in US will result in denied of I-485 because of preconceived intent to immigrate. I have no idea what they were smoking. if you search the forum, I haven't found single post saying their parents AOS was denied just because they came on visitor visa and later filed AOS.


http://www.gani.com/immigration/dd-letters/dd-baltimore.doc

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...atter+of+Cavazos+pdf&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



"Long standing Service policy (Operations Instruction 245.3(b) provides that,


If the evidence clearly establishes that the visa was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, the application shall be denied, unless the applicant qualifies for a waiver of that ground of excludability pursuant to section 212(i).


However, this same instruction provides the following policy for immediate relatives of United States citizens (spouses, parents, and unmarried children),


In the absence of other adverse factors, an application for adjustment of status as an immediate relative should generally be granted in the exercise of discretion notwithstanding the fact that the applicant entered the United States as a nonimmigrant with a preconceived intention to remain. Matter of Cavazos, Int. Dec. 2750(BIA 1980) clarified and reaffirmed. Matter of Ibrahim, Int. Dec. 2866 (BIA 1981).

On the other hand, if there is no clear evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, the mere fact that the applicant had a preconceived intent to remain in the United States permanently will not usually result in the denial of their application for permanent residence if they are classifiable as an immediate relative of a United States citizen. """
 
That is why I personally believe that B-2 status holders, whether current or expired, should not be allowed to AOS. Will make the task a little easy for people to overcome 214(b). Just my opinion.

Jackolantern said:
And the more people who actually file AOS after entering as a tourist, the more the others from the same country will be denied visas.
Click to expand...
 
Triple Citizen said:
That is why I personally believe that B-2 status holders, whether current or expired, should not be allowed to AOS.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. The same goes for those who enter with the visa waiver program. Maybe a few exceptions for hardship cases, but not as a routine thing.
 
You should not be unpopular. (I am as well.) You are just looking out for the long term best interests of a large population rather than the vested, immediate interests of an individual. Too many people don't want to hear the plain and simple truth.

I get particularly frustrated at new citizens who immediately look for a way around the rules in order to benefit themselves or members of their families. Of all people who should be intent on upholding the laws of their new home country, they should be most adament. IMO, if they were unwilling to abide by the laws, they should not have applied for citizenship but should have gone to a place whose laws were more to their liking. (And being old and not afraid to speak my mind plainly, will provide information to people without the frosting - especially when the inquirer has "attitude".)
 
Triple Citizen said:
That is why I personally believe that B-2 status holders, whether current or expired, should not be allowed to AOS.
Click to expand...

You mean it for everyone except IR of USC? As stated in the service policy this doesn't effect the IR of USC. For other B2-holder, I understand where you are coming from.

Triple Citizen said:
You do realise that we both are now very unpopular among some form members :)
Click to expand...

You are popular dude because looks like you have full time job at the forum:cool: Btw do you work for immigration consulting company or something?
 
abhiku said:
You mean it for everyone except IR of USC? As stated in the service policy this doesn't effect the IR of USC. For other B2-holder, I understand where you are coming from.
Click to expand...

That's the only group it would affect. In most cases, non-immediate relatives would not get a priority date close enough to the expiration of their stay to adjust, and aren't elgibile to adjust once out of status.
 
Triple Citizen said:
After 6 years in Toronto and 6 years in Chicago, I am tired of shoveling snow :)
Next year I hit 40, shoveling snow is not fun. Besides I lived in Kuwait for 7 years, heat does not bother me :)
Click to expand...

I thought same thing this morning when I scraping snow on windshield of my car in St Louis. Living in middle east makes much sense.
 
abhiku said:
You mean it for everyone except IR of USC? As stated in the service policy this doesn't effect the IR of USC. For other B2-holder, I understand where you are coming from.
Click to expand...
The point is that hundreds of honest B2 applicants are denied visas every day because of the suspicion that they will attempt to AOS with the help of their citizen or LPR relatives. The suspicion of AOS is also applicable to many who aren't IR of USC, because of their high potential to become IR of USC in the future either by their green card spouse becoming a citizen, or they are young and single and thus are likely to marry a USC within the next 5-10 years and then file for AOS.

Take away the ability to AOS after entering with a B2, and that removes much of the incentive and ability to have preconceived immigrant intent, and seriously hurts the incentive to overstay while waiting and hoping to become eligible for AOS as Immediate Relative. The great reduction of overstays and AOS would make the consulates more lenient with granting B2 visas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top