Can B1B2 Visitor Visa Holder marry a person who has been waiting for her asylum interview in USA but alredy got her work permit and SSN I am a Permanent Resident of Canada (Indian Passport Holder) living in British Columbia. My girlfriend has been waiting for her asylum interview in USA (State: North Carolina) but she already got her work permit and SSN Here are some questions Regarding Our Case: Can I go to the USA with my B1B2 visa and marry her within a week and come back to Canada, will this be legal ?? Or would it be a visa fraud that I misuse my entry to USA for marriage and will this cause problems for my Future Green Card application ?? Or would it be misuse of entry only if I marry to green card holder ( which she is not yet) and not come back to Canada and apply for visa status adjustment there in USA ? If Yes, What kind of marriage it would be ? A marriage between two non-immigrant or marriage between non-immigrant (Visitor) and immigrant (Her) As she just got her work permit and SSN but has not appeared for her asylum interview yet, do I need to apply for any kind of k visa for marriage ? Or she needed to be a green card holder first then I can apply for a k visa. If I can marry her with my B1B2 visa as she is not a green card holder or citizen yet. Should I also have to wait 90 days in USA before marriage so that USCIS not consider it as misuse of my entry in future when I apply for green card once she get her green card after completion of her asylum case . If in my l-94 Form I am just allowed to stay for 2 weeks in the USA but I stay 90 days then marry her and come back to Canada. Then what will be its consequences for my Future green card application.
Can I go to USA with my B1B2 visa and marry her within a week and come back to Canada, will this be legal ?? Yes. Or would it be an visa fraud that I misuse my entry to USA for marriage and will cause problems for my Future Green Card application ?? No. It is only visa fraud if you lie. Or would it be misuse of entry only if I marry to green card holder ( which she is not yet) and not come back to Canada and apply for visa status adjustment there in USA ? As long as you leave the US within the period of admission granted to you on entry and otherwise abide by the conditions of B-1 or B-2 status, there is no violation. If you attempt to enter in B visitor status with the intention of marrying and not leaving, but rather adjusting status, however, the immigration officer is entitled to refuse entry, and if you attempt to adjust status after entering in B visitor status, you may find yourself having to prove that you did not have the intention to do so when you entered. If Yes, What kind of marriage it would be ? A marriage between two non-immigrant or marriage between non-immigrant ( Visitor) and immigrant (Her) As noted in a comment, l don't think this matters. As she just got her work permit and SSN but not appeared for her asylum interview yet, Do I need to apply for any kind of k visa for marriage ? Or she needed to be green card holder first then I can apply for k visa. K visas are for the fiancé or spouse of US citizens (and their children). You don't need to worry about K visas. If I can marry her with my B1B2 visa as she is not green card holder or citizen yet. Should I also have to wait 90 days in USA before marriage so that USCIS not consider it as misuse of my entry in future when I apply for green card once she get her green card after completion of her asylum case. Gaming this is a recipe for trouble. Your best bet is to hire an immigration lawyer and follow your lawyer's advice. If you can't afford an immigration lawyer, you can get some generalized advice over at Expatriates. If in my l-94 Form I am just allowed to stay for 2 weeks in the USA but i stay 90 days then marry her and come back to Canada. Then what will be its consequences for my Future green card application. If you overstay a 2-week period of admission and then leave the US you will trigger a few adverse provisions of immigration law. If the US finds that you had intention to do this when you entered, for example, and lied about it, you could trigger permanent inadmissibility for misrepresentation. What would be the best possible solution for our case ? How should we proceed so that we don't have any kind of immigration problems for future. Find a good lawyer. Getting married in the US is fairly easy. Using your marriage to immigrate to the US requires a bit more care.
There is a report about a male-to-female transgender woman here: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/2017-06-27/8651398#transcript She managed to do the following: 1. While legally being a male, she got a preliminary passport as a woman so she could travel to Thailand, have an operation, and not run into trouble returning with a male passport and a female body. 2. While legally still being male, but with a female body, she married a woman in Australia. That was fine because legally she was male. 3. She has received a passport as a female. 4. She was refused a change of her birth certificate as long as she is married. So the current state is: She is (in fact, biologically) a woman. She is married to a woman in Australia. That marriage is perfectly legal, however, it is officially a marriage between a man and a woman. She has a woman's passport. The Australian government cannot and doesn't want to do anything to make her marriage illegal. BUT she cannot change her birth certificate without getting divorced first, and if she got divorced and changed her birth certificate, she couldn't remarry the same woman, or any other woman.
Constitutionally, a person is only required to be granted U.S. citizenship if they are born in the United States. Any other form of citizenship is as provided by statute. So, 8 U.S.C. § 1409 makes some people citizens who would not otherwise be citizens in its absence. In that sense, it grants citizenship. Meanwhile, 8 U.S.C. § 1409(g) supports the proposition, which is a legal fiction in some cases, that someone is a &quot;natural born citizen&quot; of the United States, and hence eligible to run for President someday, and is retroactively considered to have been a citizen in the meantime for myriad other purposes, despite the fact that in the case of an unmarried non-citizen mother and a citizen father, this right is not vested and could never come into being if the required actions aren't taken after the fact. Incidentally, this statute has been upheld against constitutional challenges. Miller v. Albright, 520 U.S. 420 (1997). So, while you would like to clearly distinguish between someone having citizenship granted and having citizenship revoked, Congress, in its wisdom, has not been so accommodating and has declined to clearly distinguish between the two interpretations. This statute is a bit like the question of Schrödinger's cat, who is indeterminately alive and dead at the same time until there is a measurement of its state, in quantum physics. A person with an unmarried non-citizen mother and a citizen father is both a U.S. citizen from birth and always has been, and has never been a citizen of the U.S., until the situation is resolved with an actual determination of the question in accordance with the requirements of the statute.
What could be the consequences of this wedding? They would be married For example, if they break up and end their PACS in France, would they still be officially married in the USA? Yes, and also in France. And if after that they marry other partners, could this be a problem for them when applying for an American visa? Yes, bigamy is illegal in both the USA and France. Does France and the USA exchange information on wedding of foreign citizens on their soil? Don't know, probably not. Could they even end up being officially married in France even without doing any paperwork themselves? Most definitely. France recognises US marriages so they would be married in France (and the U.K., and Australia, and Germany, and ...). This is true even if the French government doesn't know they are married.
As long as they have diplomatic immunity, they don't have a residency status. If either parent didn't have diplomatic immunity, then the child is a subject to the jurisdiction and they become a citizen at birth. The short explanation with the reasoning can be found on the uscis website. Namely Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” and If one parent was an accredited diplomat, but the other was a U.S. citizen or non-citizen U.S. national, then the child was “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and is a citizen.
switzerland A mariage that is only made to get citizenship or a residence permit is illegal. The german legal term for it is &quot;Scheinehe&quot;. This is defined as Eine [Scheinehe] liegt dann vor, wenn das heiratswillige Paar offensichtlich keine Lebensgemeinschaft führt, sondern die Bestimmungen über Zulassung und Aufenthalt von Ausländerinnen und Ausländern umgehen will. A sham marriage (see below for terminology) is on hand when the couple that requests the marriage obviously doesn't live in a partnership but wants to circumvent the laws about immigration and residence of foreigners. The marriage registrar may deny the marriage, or it may even later be voided. This source says that you can get a fine or a prison sentence of up to three years for this. If one even takes money to enter a fake marriage with someone, the sentence can be up to five years. So, better wait for the right one ;-) Terminology remark: It needs to be distinguished between the terms &quot;Scheinehe&quot; (english &quot;sham marriage&quot;) and &quot;Konvenienzehe&quot; (&quot;marriage of convenience&quot;). The later is a marriage mostly to keep one's social status and is typically arranged by the parents. This is legal and was very common in former times. In some countries, e.g. in India, it is still common. It differs from the sham marriage by the fact that the social status of both spouses is the same.
I'm very sorry to hear about your situation. Unfortunately, this is too important to trust advice from strangers over the Internet. You should talk to an attorney familiar with Bulgarian immigration law. @jwh20 is correct; entering another country is not a human right. If they are not allowing you to return to your home country despite your following all laws, that is likely a human rights issue. This does not necessarily mean you won't be able to get into Bulgaria; if one person is preventing you from entering, an attorney may be able to get that person's decision overturned.
Maybe To be a refugee (a necessary prerequisite to claiming asylum) you must meet the UN definition as incorporated in the host country’s domestic law: a person who: has a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’; ‘is outside the country of [their] nationality’; and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail [themselves] of the protection of that country’. It is important to note that “gender” is not one of the 5 grounds enumerated. However, while the definition is from the UN, the “the right of asylum is a right of States, not of the individual” or the UN. That is, each state decides who does and does not fall within one of the 5 categories even if their home state might not decide that way. This article discusses that “woman” (or a subset of “woman” e.g. divorced woman, transitioned woman etc.) could fit one of the categories - usually the “social group” or “religion” or “race”. It also mentions that common law jurisdictions have divergent approaches: Australian courts have adopted a ‘social perception’ approach which examines whether a group shares a common characteristic which sets it apart from society at large. In contrast, the jurisprudence in Canada, United Kingdom and USA has emphasised the ‘protected characteristics’ approach, which considers whether a group is united by an immutable characteristic or by a characteristic so ‘fundamental to human dignity that a person should not be compelled to forsake it’.