No, this piece has nothing to do with the topic of precoital motivation. Nor is this about the issue of prearranged conception. Or the pros and cons of artificial insemination.
Preconceived intent, in the context of US immigration law, is the legal doctrine by which an applicant is presumed to have possessed a dishonest intent to do an act that is inconsistent with the purpose of the applicant’s visa or immigration status, which intent was existent at the time of the visa application or entry to the United States.
The presumption is triggered by the act’s occurring within a certain period of time from the date of arrival in the US, which period, for regulatory purposes, is subject to the authorities’ policy-making discretion.
Under current practice, any prohibited act taking place within 90 days of entry to the US triggers a rebuttable presumption that the applicant had possessed a preconceived (dishonest) intent at the time of visa application or entry to the country.
To illustrate, Mr. Lou Cuaco applies for a visitor’s visa at the US Embassy in Manila. When asked the purpose of his travel, he tells the consul he is visiting a relative. Upon arrival at the US port of entry, he repeats the same line to the CBP officer-on-duty.
Within days of arrival, however, he immediately starts looking for a school to pursue a master’s degree in Puppetry. Upon being admitted to Wanbol University in Oddville, Kentucky, he promptly enrolls and begins his study, which he does within 90 days of entry.
Under the preconceived intent doctrine, any future application for a visa or change of status by Mr. Cuaco may be denied due to the presumption of fraud or dishonesty at the time of his original visa application or entry to the US. Under the law, he should have applied for a student visa instead of a visitor visa.
However, if Mr. Cuaco waits until after 90 days before exploring any enrollment opportunities or before applying for a change of status, the presumption of having a preconceived intent no longer stands and he will be allowed the opportunity to explain any change of mind on his part.
Here’s another example: Ms. Malou Cusia travels to the US on a religious worker’s visa. Upon arrival at the port of entry, the CBP officer-on-duty asks her about the purpose of her travel. She explains that she is being sent by her pastor, the Self-Appointed Son of God With A Name Unlike Any Name, to spread the teachings of the church in America.
Unbeknownst to the CBP officer, Ms. Cusia is also planning to marry a boyfriend she met online, who is a US green card holder. They wed shortly after her arrival.
Unfortunately for Ms. Cusia, the doctrine of preconceived intent can be used against her when the time comes for her to apply for a green card based on the marriage.
Nevertheless, considering that preconceived intent is a waivable offense for immediate relatives of US citizens, Ms. Cusia can avoid liability if her boyfriend naturalizes soon after they get married.
Whatever fate awaits Ms. Cusia, one thing is certain: preconceived intent will have no impact on the outcome of their planned honeymoon in the idyllic town of Intercourse, Pennsylvania.