Integrity Legal

The United States visa waiver program, not to be confused with an I-601 waiver, allows citizens from certain countries to enter the United States of American without obtaining a visa prior to arrival. In recent years the United States government has implemented ESTA, also known as: the Electronic System for Travel Authorization. ESTA requires that travelers wishing to enter the country on a visa waiver inform the US Immigration authorities prior to arrival so that a pre-screening can be conducted. The United States Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Service is tasked with monitoring those seeking travel clearances using the ESTA system. Recently it has been reported by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) that 221g denials must be reported in the ESTA form, to quote AILA directly:

“CBP recently informed AILA that it, after consultation with the Department of State (DOS), is classifying all §221(g) actions on visa applications as visa “denials.” Thus, Visa Waiver Program (VWP) applicants, who are subject to INA §221(g) refusals, should answer affirmatively in their ESTA applications that they have been denied a visa. This suggestion applies even if the reason for the refusal is due to consular administrative processing. If VWP travelers do not disclose such a “denial” on their ESTA applications or provide an update regarding such “denials,” they may have their ESTA registration rejected or be sent to secondary inspection and potentially refused entry when they apply for admission to the United States.”

This is important to note for those originating from a country participating in the US visa waiver program. For example, if the foreign fiancee of a US Citizen has been issued a 221g with regard to a K1 visa application, then that 221g must be disclosed as a denial on the ESTA form if said fiancee intends to visit the US and the foreign fiancee’s home country participates in this program.

As AILA’s article went on to point out, the Department of State does not even consider 221(g)’s to be outright denials,

Technically, the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) classifies a §221(g) action as a visa “refusal,” but DOS explicitly retains authority to “reactivate” the visa application upon receipt of required documents or completion of a government mandated administrative clearance. See 9 FAM 41.121 N2.4.

This situation is a classic example of two different government agencies taking a differing view of the same situation. The Department of State seems to view 221g refusals as administrative refusals to issue a visa without further documentation while the Department of Homeland Security seems to view such refusals as US visa denials that could be viewed as grounds for denying a person’s subsequent entry into the USA.

This issue will likely not be particularly problematic in the Kingdom of Thailand as Thailand is not a country participating in the visa waiver program, but for others around the world this issue could lead to problems entering the USA.

For those in this situation, it is always advisable to be honest, but it may be possible to explain the situation by answering “yes” to the question: Have you ever been denied a U.S. visa or entry? After answering in the affirmative there should be space to explain. Therefore, the applicant probably should note that the denial was: a 221(g), at the Embassy or Consulate (example: US Embassy Bangkok, US Consulate Chiang Mia, US Embassy Burma, etc.),  and the reason for the “denial” (example: Embassy conducted administrative processing, Consulate requested further documentation, etc).

Tags: 221 (g), 221g, AILA, CBP, Customs and Border Protection, ESTA, I601 Waiver, us visa denial, US visa denials, US Visa Waiver, Visa Waiver, Visa Waiver Program
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, General Legal Information, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, Legal Opinion, US Consulate Chiang Mai, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, Visa Waiver | No Comments »

Although this blog primarily focuses upon United States immigration for couples, we sometimes overlook the fact that the Petitioner may be a woman and the Beneficiary may be a man. Many American women in Thailand meet and fall in love with Thai men. Eventually the US Citizen must return to America and the couple begins to research options for the Thai national’s entrance into the USA.

One of the first visa categories that many couples look at is the category B2 visa also known as the tourist visa. Unfortunately, as in situations with an American man and a Thai lady, the US Embassy in Bangkok is reluctant to issue such visas to those with an American girlfriend, fiancee, or spouse because the relationship itself constitutes a “strong tie” to the US which is evidence bolstering the presumption of immigrant intent under 214(b) of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Many tourist visas sought for Thai loved ones of US Citizens are denied under the above section of the INA.

Fortunately, the US fiance visa may be a possibility for the Thai-American couple as the US citizen fiancee could sponsor the Thai fiance for a K1 visa. This visa would allow the Thai man to come to the USA for 90 days. After arrival, the couple must marry and apply for adjustment of status so that the Thai man will be a lawful permanent resident in the United States. Should the couple not marry, then the Thai must leave the US before the 90 day period of lawful Immigration status ends. Generally, it takes between 6 and 7 months to process a K1 visa.

US marriage visas are also an option for the Thai-American couple. The usual method for receiving marriage visa benefits is for the Thai man to marry the American lady at a local Amphur office (Civil registrar office) in Thailand. Once the couple is legally married they will be eligible to apply for a CR-1 visa by filing an I-130 Immigration petition. It usually takes between 11 and 12 months for such a petition to be processed.

For those who wish to expedite the marriage visa process a K3 visa could be employed to shorten the processing time. It currently takes 8 months to process the supplemental I-129f petition for a K3. This type of visa requires the filing of two petitions. At this time, the K3 visa is probably not the best method of obtaining Immigration benefits because the K1 has a faster processing time and the CR1 visa does not require adjustment of status after entry.

All in all, the US Immigration process is basically the same regardless of each parties gender. That being said, US federal law (the Defense of Marriage Act) still requires that the petitioner and beneficiary be of the opposite sex.

Tags: 214 b, 214(b), American Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa Thailand, US Visa Thailand
Posted in Adjustment of Status, CR1 Visa, Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, Legal Opinion, Thai Family Law, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa Thailand | No Comments »

In Thailand, any foreign national who wishes to be employed in the Kingdom must first obtain a work permit. Any Thai company that wishes to employ a foreigner must first meet certain requirements before the Thai Ministry of Labour will issue a work permit to a foreign national. Most notable among the requirements: any company employing a foreigner must have at least 2 million baht in registered capital (There may be exceptions for those with Thai Permanent Residence or an O visa based upon marriage to a Thai national). For the most part, employees in Thailand will only have one employer. However, sometimes situations arise where a foreign worker wishes to take up a second job. In this case a second employer will need to be noted in the work permit booklet.

There is a common misconception that a Thai work permit allows a foreigner to work anywhere in any capacity within the Kingdom of Thailand. Unfortunately, this is not the case, the work permit simply allows the foreigner to be engaged in the specifically noted activity stipulated in the work permit. Further, the work permit only allows the foreigner to be employed at the place of employment noted in the work permit booklet. Therefore, the address of the employer could be inferred as the only location where the foreigner is eligible to work.

Should secondary employment be sought by the foreigner, then it may be possible have another employer noted in the foreigner’s work permit. However, the first employer must agree to have a second employer noted therein. Further, the activity specified in the permit must be in conformity with the employment restrictions in the Thai Foreign Business Act. This legislation restricts foreigners from engaging in certain business activities in the Kingdom of Thailand.

The addition of a second employer should not have an impact upon the foreign national’s visa status in the Kingdom provided the original employer continues to meet the Thai Immigration rules regarding requirements for sponsorship of a Thai visa extension. Basically, the foreign national will continue to maintain one visa (sponsored by the original employer), but will have two work authorizations (one for the original employer and another for the secondary employer).

In a case where the original employment is ending, but the foreign national wishes to continue to reside in the Kingdom and work for what had been his second employer, a new Thailand visa extension could be issued if the foreigner quickly petitions for such an extension (it usually must be within 7 days) and the secondary employer meets the requirements for sponsoring a Thai visa extension.

Tags: Thai Visa, Thai Visa Extension, Thai Work Permit, Thailand Business, Thailand company, Thailand Visa, Thailand visa extension, Work Permit, work permit Thailand
Posted in Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, Thailand Business, Thailand Visa | 1 Comment »

For those interested in purchasing property in the Kingdom of Thailand, Condominiums can be an attractive proposition. One of the major benefits of Thai Condo ownership is the fact that a foreign national is allowed to take possession of foreign freehold title to that particular piece of Thai Real Estate. In Thailand, foreigners are greatly restricted with regard to Thai property as they cannot own land outright. There are certain situations in which a Thai company can be utilized in such a way that a foreigner enjoys the benefits of land ownership, but these type of structures can be cumbersome and recently the Thai authorities have been cracking down on such entities.

Thai Condos provide the benefit of allowing the foreign national to be registered on the Thai Chanote (Title Deed). Further, by being the owner of a Condo in Thailand, the foreigner can apply to obtain a foreign Tabien Baan (house registration booklet) which can be a major benefit as this document is very useful in conducting legal and business transactions in the Kingdom of Thailand. Further, a Thai Condo owner may be able to enjoy some immigration benefits in the form of a Thailand visa as the owner can show that they are living in the Kingdom and contributing to the economy.

One notable issue that often arises in cases involving Thai Condominiums is the requirement that all funds used to purchase the Condo must originate from overseas. This requirement can be met by those earning an income in Thailand, but a great deal of paperwork must be submitted in order to use income earned in Thailand. An even more pressing issue, however, is that of capital flight after the future sale of a Thai Condo unit. The government of Thailand along with the Thai banks have promulgated policies in order to keep foreign capital in the Kingdom when that capital has been previously used to purchase Thai real estate. For example, if a foreigner in Thailand has a Condo unit and opts to sell it. The proceeds from the sale could be practically impounded in the sense that the Thai authorities will place many restrictions on sending said funds abroad. This situation can be averted throught prior planning. If one seeks the advice of a Thailand Real Estate lawyer, they could provide advice and strategies about how one can structure a Thai Condo purchase in such a way that the proceeds from a future sale can be moved abroad at a future point in time, should a sale even occur.

Tags: Thai Condo, Thai Condominium, Thailand Condo, Thailand Condominium, Thailand Property, Thailand Property Law, Thailand Real Estate, Thailand Real Estate Law, Thailand Visa
Posted in Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, Thailand Condo, Thailand Property, Thailand Real Estate, Thailand Visa | 1 Comment »

Recently, Alejandro Mayorkas was appointed as the Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service within the United States Department of Homeland Security. Mr Mayorkas was recently interviewed by members of the United States and foreign press corps in an effort to hear his views on United States Immigration policy and the future of US Immigration law.

Below are some of the important quotes that this author found both interesting and insightful, the full interview transcript can be read here.

This blog is mostly dedicated to United States family immigration and visas. Therefore, it was a pleasure to hear that Mr. Mayorkas considers US Family Immigration to be a major priority of his agency:

“…One of the goals of an immigration system[:] family unification. Do the laws that we have now achieve that most ably? That’s a question that is — that I think is a valid one to ask. And so we have to take a look at the goals, as a nation, of our immigration system and ask does the structure that we have in place – or do the mechanisms that we have in place accomplish those goals most ably, most completely and most efficiently? And where there are shortcomings, that is, indeed, what immigration reform is in part about.”

As we have posited previously on in this forum, the current system of adjudicating non-immigrant family visas could be considered redundant and a poor distribution of resources. In the case of the K1 visa and the K3 visa one could make a valid argument that such visas, as they involve the doctrine of dual intent, could be completely adjudicated at the Embassies and Consulates abroad while letting USCIS deal with more pressing issues at home. If K visa non-immigrant family members do decide to adjust status, then the USCIS will need to deal with the case as the adjudication will occur under their domestic authority.

Mr. Mayorkas was also quoted as saying, “The fact that I myself was once a refugee to this country informs my views of our agency’s mission and the priorities that we will carry forward, during the time that I am privileged to serve.” This author is definitely happy to see a Director who has personal knowledge of the Immigration system. Hopefully, these personal insights will result in a net benefit for everyone who has dealings with USCIS.

The Director was further quoted as saying,

“The goal of family reunification is indeed one that we hold dear to our efforts as we try to administer the immigration laws fairly and with justice always in mind. Ultimately, our adjudications are indeed on an individualized basis, and there are mechanisms that the law acknowledges to achieve family reunification in particular cases. And that is very much a part of the work that we do.”

This author is happy to hear such sentiments from the Director of USCIS and hopefully this is a sign of things to come as the Immigration system becomes a more compassionate and efficient agency of the US government.

Tags: Alejandro Mayorkas, American Visa, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, US Immigration, US Visa, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in Adjustment of Status, K1 Visa, K3 Visa, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | 1 Comment »

Recently the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) announced that a revised form has been issued for those who wish to file for an I-601 Waiver. An I-601 waiver is a waiver of legal grounds of inadmissibility under the United States Immigration and Nationality Act. An alien is found inadmissible if they meet the elements of inadmissibility under the act. Common grounds of inadmissibility among applicants in Thailand are overstay, prostitution, Crimes involving moral turpitude, and health related grounds. If a finding that one of these grounds exists is made by the Consular or Immigration officers, then the applicant must seek an I-601 waiver before they will be entitled to enter the United State lawfully.

In recent days, USCIS has been revising some of the forms that they will accept in connection with certain immigration matters. For example, USCIS recently announced that they will only be accepting an updated version of the G28 Notice of Attorney Appearance. Those who have already filed applications for Immigration benefits before this update comes into effect will not need to submit any new forms as the service will continue to recognize the old forms in an effort to seamlessly transition from the old forms to the new. These efforts seem to be an attempt to streamline the, somewhat complicated, administrative aspects of the US Immigration application process. To quote directly from the USCIS press release:

USCIS has revised Form I-601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility (Revision Date 04/06/09 N, OMB Expiration Date 04/30/11) to make it easier for applicants to complete. Applicants may now select from a list of grounds of inadmissibility on the form itself and mark all which apply to them in order to request a waiver. In addition to the list, the form includes a section where applicants can describe, in their own words, why they believe they are inadmissible. In the previous edition of Form I-601, information about grounds of inadmissibility could only be found of the form’s instructions.

We applaud the efforts on the part of the Service to make this process less complicated and more straightforward. For those interested in submitting a successful I-601 waiver application, it should be remembered that in most cases involving an I-601 waiver, the applicant(s) must show that to deny the waiver would result in an “extreme hardship” to a United States Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident. This can be a difficult legal obstacle to overcome which is why it may be wise to retain an immigration lawyer to assist with the preparation and submission of such a petition.

Unlike the United States Embassy in Bangkok, which only has jurisdiction ovr the Kingdom of Thailand. The local USCIS office in Bangkok has administrative jurisdiction over most of Asia. Therefore, I-601 waiver applications filed in connection with a K1 visa, K3 visa, or CR1 visa sought from Asia could be submitted at USCIS Bangkok.

Tags: 601 Waiver, I-601, I-601 Waiver, I601, I601 Waiver, Immigration Lawyer, Immigration Lawyer Bangkok, US Immigration Lawyer Bangkok, US Immigration Lawyer Thailand, us visa bangkok, US Visa Burma, US Visa Myanmar, US Visa Thailand, USCIS Bangkok, USCIS Thailand
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, General Legal Information, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Burma, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS, Visa Waiver | 1 Comment »

The law of trusts has been a component of the common law system for many years. Under the common law system the idea of title was bifurcated into legal title and equitable title. Under this system, one could hold legal title to real estate or property while equitable title was held by another. This made it possible to circumvent legal mechanisms such as probate or avoid certain types of taxation. Many Expats who originate in common law countries mistakenly believe that this concept can be applied in Thailand. Unfortunately, Thai law does not codify the idea of trust law and as a result business and property structures should probably not be based upon such concepts.

In England many years ago, two courts came about to deal with civil and criminal issues. At first there were the courts of law where cases could be heard. However, there were many instances where the courts of law could not effectively deal with some matters. Therefore, a Court of the King’s Conscience was established and certain cases were resolved in this “court of equity.” Trust law evolved from this bifurcation of equity and law. One could hold equitable title in the court of equity, but not hold legal title in the court of law. Often, the result was to the advantage of the holder of equitable title because it allowed him to enjoy the benefits of the property without the burdens of legal ownership (most notably taxation). In countries where the common law system became the law of the land, these principles of equitable and legal title were passed on. As a result, in many common law countries today, the idea of nominee shareholders is a commonly accepted method of maintaining control of a business or property interest. Also, controlling a trust that owns land is a common method of lawfully avoiding taxes.

In countries that did not adhere to common law principles, the notion of equitable and legal title is somewhat foreign and often not recogized as a legitimate method of property ownership. In Thailand, which utilizes a civil code legal system, trusts and equity are not regarded as mutually exclusive methods of property ownership. Although similar concepts such as usufructs, superficies, and escrows exist, for the most part Thailand does not recognize many equitable concepts. A case in point is the Thai view of nominee shareholders. Nominees are strictly forbidden under statutes passed by the Thai parliament (while the definition of nominee is left somewhat vague). Further, nominees are viewed with extra hostility where they are being utilized for the purpose of maintaining control of a Thai company to own land.

Tags: Civil Code, Common Law, Thai Company, Thai Property, Thai Real Estate, Thailand Nominee Shareholders, Trust Law, Trusts, Trusts in Thailand
Posted in General Legal Information, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, Thailand Business, Thailand Property, Thailand Real Estate | No Comments »

In a previous post, we discussed the initial submission of an application for a United States visa for a foreign loved one. In this post we will discuss what needs to be done in the event of a request for evidence from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). After USCIS receives an American Citizen’s US Immigration application, they send out a receipt notice commonly referred to as Notice of Action 1, or NOA 1. In the vast majority of ultimately successful cases the Notice of Action 1 is followed by the Notice of Action 2 approval notice. However, there are cases where an adjudicating officer at USCIS requests further documentation. In most Requests for Evidence (RFE) the deficiency of evidence is based upon the fact that one or more of the documents was illegible. This is why clearly legible documentation should always be provided when submitting an application to USCIS.

In order to forestall receiving an RFE, many couples opt to retain an Immigration attorney to assist in the filing of a United States visa application. An experienced United States Immigration attorney can predict what the officers will wish to see in order to favorably adjudicate a petition. However, simply retaining an attorney will not guarantee that a Request For Evidence will not be made, but if an RFE is sent, then the attorney can handle it and deal with the documentary deficiency.

The RFE will specify which documents are either missing or illegible. After specifying the deficiency, the RFE will go on to state how the deficiency can be dealt with and the deadline the applicant and petitioner will have to remedy the problem by sending the requested documentation.

In a way, an RFE is similar to a 221g refusal from the United States Embassy. The reason these requests are similar is that both require that the applicant or petitioner provide further documentation before an approval will be granted. The major difference between these two requests is the fact that officers of the United States Department of State issue 221 g requests while officers of the United States Department of Homeland Security issue requests for evidence. In both cases, the documentation is requested usually in an effort to conduct due diligence to ensure that the Immigration benefit should be accorded to the beneficiary.

In K1 visa applications the adjudicating officer is usually requesting evidence that shows the bona fides of the relationship or the status of one of the parties. In K3 or CR1 visa applications, the officer is usually seeking evidence regarding the couple’s marital status or the status of the parties before the marriage occurred.

Tags: CR1 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa Thailand, Request For Evidence, RFE, US Embassy, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, US Consulate Chiang Mai, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Tourist Visa, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

On this blog, we commonly make reference to Notice of Action 1 or NOA 1. In an effort to provide the most high quality repository of United States Immigration definitions for those seeking a US Visa from Thailand providing a brief overview of this official Immigration notice is required.

In many United States Immigration matters, particularly family Immigration cases from Thailand, the visa application must first receive approval from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). This agency is one of many that reports to the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

When a couple opts to apply for a United States visa, they often apply for one of the following categories: CR1 visa, IR1 visa, K3 visa, or K1 visa. The CR1, IR1, and K3 are all United States Marriage visas while the K1 visa is a fiancee visa. All of these visas require USCIS pre-approval before a visa interview can be set. Conversely the B1 visa, B2 visa, F1 visa, and J1 visa are all non-immigrant visa categories (that do not permit dual intent) and therefore do not require USCIS pre-approval. It should be noted that the non-immigrant visa categories are much more difficult to acquire for loved ones of United States citizens due to a provision in the United States Immigration and Nationality Act called 214b. This provision creates a legal presumption that must be overcome by the foreign applicant before the visa will be issued.

When a United States Citizen files for a K1, K3, CR1, or IR1 visa they first file an application at a USCIS Service Center. There are two USCIS Service Centers that accept applications for the aforementioned visa categories and the petitioner’s residence will determine where the application should be filed. The petitioner will send in the application and upon receipt, the USCIS Service Center will generate a receipt referred to as Notice of Action 1 (or NOA1). This receipt will note the names of the Petitioner and Beneficiary as well as the date of receipt and the date the notice was generated. The receipt will also show a case number.

For those who retain the services of a US visa lawyer, a copy of Notice of Action 1 will be sent to the attorney provided the attorney submitted a G28 form with the application. Before retaining an attorney it is wise to make certain that a G28 form will be submitted because it is important to facilitating efficient visa processing. Fake lawyers and so-called visa agencies cannot represent clients before USCIS so it may be wise to inquire as to the credentials of any proposed representative. Unfortunately, in the Kingdom of Thailand, there are many unauthorized services masquerading as licensed US Immigration attorneys.

The Notice of Action 1 should not be confused with the initial letter sent from the US Embassy Thailand. This letter is commonly referred to a Packet 3 and is sent at a later phase of the US Immigration process.

Tags: American Visa Thailand, CR1 Visa, F1 Visa, Fiance Visa, J1 visa, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, NOA 1, Notice of Action 1, us embassy bangkok, us embassy thailand, US Visa Thailand, USCIS
Posted in Adjustment of Status, F1 Visa Thailand, Fiance Visa Thailand, General Legal Information, J1 Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, US Consulate Chiang Mai, us embassy bangkok, US Embassy Thailand, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »

A happily uncommon issue that can arise in United States Immigration law is known as the “widows penalty.” The Widow’s penalty becomes an issue when the American Citizen Petitioner dies before the adjudication of a foreign spouse’s pending Immigration matter. For example, a widow of a United States Citizen could be penalized if her American spouse dies before the I-751 Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence is adjudicated (also known as a “lift of conditions”). The logic underpinning the penalty is based upon the notion that the widow is no longer married to a United States Citizen and therefore cannot have conditions removed because the continuing marriage is the basis for removal of conditions. Currently, the United States courts are in the process of dealing with this issue and it would appear that there is an overwhelming feeling that the “widow’s penalty,” should be removed because it is somewhat inequitable.

In the recent case of Hanford v. Napolitano, a Texas Court held that the Widow of an American Citizen will be entitled to adjust status to permanent residence even if the American dies before adjudication provided the couple was lawfully married and there are no issues as to the bona fides of the relationship. To quote the court opinion:

“Under the plain language of the statute, Congress’s intent is clear: The Attorney General is precluded from adjusting the status of a non-immigrant except as a result of the marriage of the nonimmigrant to the very U.S. citizen who filed the petition in the first place to grant that alien’s nonimmigrant status. Situations such as Ms. Hanford’s meet the exemption. Plaintiff is entitled to adjustment of her legal status to that of permanent resident under the language of the statute because her legally filed application is a result of her marriage to the U.S. citizen who filed Form I-129F to obtain her nonimmigrant status.”

The Widow’s Penalty would seem to be falling by the wayside, but the law is not completely settled on the issue as some courts have differing rules regarding the adjudication of such cases. For those with a great deal of anxiety about their spouse’s ability to obtain an adjustment of status in the future, researching immigrant and non-immigrant visas may provide insight into the consequences of a US Citizen’s untimely death.  One major benefit of the Immigrant visa categories such as the IR1 visa and the CR1 visa is the fact that the foreign spouse enters the United States with lawful permanent residence upon entry. However, the processing time for these visas is considerably longer when compared with the K3 visa or the K1 visa.

Issues like this fully emphasize the reason why it may be imperative for an American to obtain licensed legal counsel for issues involving US visas. For more information about the importance of retaining licensed legal counsel, please see: How Can My Thai Fiancee Get US Citizenship?

Tags: Adjustment of Status, CR1 Visa, CR1 Visa Thailand, I-751, I751, K1 Visa, K1 Visa Thailand, K3 Visa, K3 Visa Thailand, US Visa, Widow's Penalty
Posted in Adjustment of Status, Fiance Visa Thailand, K-3 Visa Thailand, K1 Visa Thailand, Legal Opinion, Miscellaneous, US Visa and Immigration, US Visa Thailand, USCIS | No Comments »