# Trying to be with brother and fiance



## SP3IIL (May 10, 2015)

My brother, his wife, and five kids is currently in mexico and 2 years into becoming naturalized. My fiance is mexican and lives near them. I would like to move there before getting married. Is it possible to join in my brothers paperwork as his dependent? All his finances come from the states or would i have to get some sort of fiance visa?


----------



## Belizegirl (Oct 21, 2010)

Has your brother adopted you or does he have guardianship? Are you over 18?

I do not mean to come off as rude, but .....


----------



## SP3IIL (May 10, 2015)

He has not, and I am over 18. Not sure what you mean by ..... but the reason i asked about going through his paperwork, is so i wouldn't have to prove income like he did and it would save me 2 years of the process.


----------



## ojosazules11 (Nov 3, 2013)

SP3IIL said:


> He has not, and I am over 18. Not sure what you mean by ..... but the reason i asked about going through his paperwork, is so i wouldn't have to prove income like he did and it would save me 2 years of the process.


I just re-read the relevant parts of the Mexican Immigration Law and it states siblings can be included for someone becoming a Permanent Resident only if they are still children or adolescents, unmarried or under the applicant's guardianship.

_"Hermanos del residente permanente, siempre y cuando sean niñas, niños y adolescentes y no hayan contraído matrimonio, o estén bajo su representación legal."_

How long do you want to live in Mexico before marrying your Mexican fiancé? You can always enter on a 6 month tourist permit to spend time with your brother's family and your fiancé. At the 6 month mark you have 2 choices. 

1. Leave the country and re-enter on a new 180 day Tourist Permit

2. Marry your fiancé while still on a valid tourist permit and apply for residency from within Mexico. Marrying a Mexican while on a Tourist Permit is one of the few ways you can apply for residency without leaving the country and *without having to meet the financial requirements*. You would let INM (Instituto Nacional de Migración) know that you are applying for residency under the "Vínculo Familiar" rules (Family Connection rules).

There is no provision for siblings under Temporary Residency (Residente Temporal).


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

I read the law also and think that sponsoring a sibling is there for several reasons. For minor children dependent on a brother or sister, clearly stated. For students who are still in school, not so clearly stated. For disabled people financially dependent on a brother or sister. For retired over 60 or 65 people also dependent on a brother or sister, not stated at all but maybe a possibiity. I doubt it applies to a sybling that is of working age and unemployed. Also comes under the "Vinculo Familiar" law or in English the Family Bond law.


----------



## SP3IIL (May 10, 2015)

The only way I could afford to stay there, is if I can get work there, for which I would need a work visa. You can't make money there while on a tourist visa as far as i know


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

From what you're telling us, it seems that you intend to reside/live in Mexico long-term, and that you won't be visiting as a short-term tourist. Therefore, if I'm interpreting/understanding what you've told us, residing in Mexico with permission given for tourism purposes, is contrary to the regulations and/or law.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

Longford said:


> From what you're telling us, it seems that you intend to reside/live in Mexico long-term, and that you won't be visiting as a short-term tourist. Therefore, if I'm interpreting/understanding what you've told us, residing in Mexico with permission given for tourism purposes, is contrary to the regulations and/or law.


That's your interpretation of the regulations/law, Longford, not what has been happening in practice for many years.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

Longford said:


> From what you're telling us, it seems that you intend to reside/live in Mexico long-term, and that you won't be visiting as a short-term tourist. Therefore, if I'm interpreting/understanding what you've told us, residing in Mexico with permission given for tourism purposes, is contrary to the regulations and/or law.


Don´t state your opinion as a fact, please. This is misleading to other readers who don´t know you.


----------



## Chelloveck (Sep 21, 2013)

Longford said:


> residing in Mexico with permission given for tourism purposes, is contrary to the regulations and/or law.


You mean, other than the fact that it is not at all contrary to the law.


----------



## ojosazules11 (Nov 3, 2013)

SP3IIL said:


> The only way I could afford to stay there, is if I can get work there, for which I would need a work visa. You can't make money there while on a tourist visa as far as i know


As you can see, different expats interpret the Immigration Law differently. But when it comes down to it, none of our opinions matter one whit. Your brother would need to present your case to INM and see if they will allow you to reside in Mexico under the auspices of his residency permit. Theirs is the only opinion that matters.

If he does this, it would be interesting and helpful if you let us know what INM's response is.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

Isla Verde said:


> That's your interpretation of the regulations/law, Longford, not what has been happening in practice for many years.


I find it a bit silly for anyone to point-out that a participant or participants on this forum is/are expressing an opinion. Probably 99.9% of the comments expressed on this or any other similar forum are just that .... opinion. Opinions is why people participate in forums. Web forums typically advise participants not to rely on conversations on the forums for legal or medical advice. *If a question is crucially important to someone they should consult a qualified professional.*

That having been said ... I respect your right to express your opinion, uninformed as I believe it is pertaining to the published regulations and/or law in this area.  

To the best of my knowledge, there is no provision in the regulations or law which permits expats who establish residency in Mexico to do so on permission intended for and given to persons present in Mexico as tourists. If I've overlooked such a "tourists I'll appreciate your providing a link to it. Yes, there are INM employees who are either lazy, uncaring or corrupt who will allow an expat to do something contrary to the regulations. Ineptness and corruption is a hallmark of many government operations in the country. 

Instead of encouraging people asking questions on the topic of Mexican residency requirements to circumvent the regulations/law (or guiding them relative to how its done), it might be best if such people asking the questions were first directed to the regulations so that they, themselves, can make a determination of what to do given their particular, personal circumstance (which, most of the time, are not fully known to us).

I think it's obvious that Mexico has been tightening the 'noose' on illegal aliens both by adoption of the 2012 revised regulations, by the increased vigilance at some entry points and also by the current amnesty - an amnesty (for lack of better description) which, as I've read the public statements (yes, another "opinion") may well exclude expats/foreign migrants who've said they're "tourists" (or who've been present in Mexico on non-existent or long-ago expired FMMs) but who actually residents in Mexico (some for a period of years).

But, to come full circle ... maybe instead of claiming, as if it's a surprise, that someone has expressed an opinion on this forum ... someone create a symbol identifying what someone says as absolute, irrefutable fact. However, who will be the determiner of "fact"?


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

Longford said:


> … - an amnesty (for lack of better description) which, as I've read the public statements (yes, another "opinion") may well exclude expats/foreign migrants who've said they're "tourists" (or who've been present in Mexico on non-existent or long-ago expired FMMs) but who actually residents in Mexico (some for a period of years).…


There is a difference between being in Mexico on serial tourist permits, and remaining in Mexico after a tourist permit or visa expires. The former is legal, the latter clearly not. Amnesty might apply to a person here illegally, i.e with an expired permit or visa, it is irrelevant for someone who is here legally with a current tourist permit or a visa.


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

He may use a tourist permit to visit for up to 180 days, but must not try to work, and must leave Mexico before the 180th day. He may then return and get a fresh FMM tourist permit for up to 180 days and visit again. 
Longford does not like this procedure, but it is not illegal at all.


----------



## Cristobal (Nov 25, 2014)

RVGRINGO said:


> He may use a tourist permit to visit for up to 180 days, but must not try to work, and must leave Mexico before the 180th day. He may then return and get a fresh FMM tourist permit for up to 180 days and visit again.
> Longford does not like this procedure, but it is not illegal at all.


Prohibited doesn't necessarily equate to illegal. I side with Longford. Any INM agent can refuse entry to anyone they feel is residing year round in the country without proper residency permit. And a tourist permit is not a resident permit. That is not its intended purpose and all INM agents are aware of that fact and can act accordingly.


----------



## maesonna (Jun 10, 2008)

I think that the window for debate on this point remains open because living long-term in Mexico on tourist permits is contrary to the _spirit_ but not the _letter_ of the regulations. As we know, it is certainly possible – people are doing it. More than possible, it is not prohibited – it’s not illegal. But…

In the past, people could live indefinitely in Mexico on FM3 visas, but now an immigrant has to convert to permanent after no more than 4 years of temporary. I think this points to a change of attitude toward migrants such that if they are going to live in Mexico long-term, they are forced to make a stronger – more permanent – commitment. If at some point in the future, long-term residents are disallowed from persisting on tourist permits, it would be consistent with this attitude. 

If it is decided in the future to clamp down on long-term tourists, the information system is now in place to do so. If it were to happen, it is also possible that it might be done in practice without adding any new regulations, since allowing entry of a tourist is always at the discretion of the migration official at the entry point.


----------



## Cristobal (Nov 25, 2014)

maesonna said:


> I think that the window for debate on this point remains open because living long-term in Mexico on tourist permits is contrary to the _spirit_ but not the _letter_ of the regulations. As we know, it is certainly possible – people are doing it. More than possible, it is not prohibited – it’s not illegal. But…
> 
> In the past, people could live indefinitely in Mexico on FM3 visas, but now an immigrant has to convert to permanent after no more than 4 years of temporary. I think this points to a change of attitude toward migrants such that if they are going to live in Mexico long-term, they are forced to make a stronger – more permanent – commitment. If at some point in the future, long-term residents are disallowed from persisting on tourist permits, it would be consistent with this attitude.
> 
> If it is decided in the future to clamp down on long-term tourists, the information system is now in place to do so. If it were to happen, it is also possible that it might be done in practice without adding any new regulations, since allowing entry of a tourist is always at the discretion of the migration official at the entry point.


I was under the impression that one can stay indefinitely under Temporary Resident status simply by starting the process all over instead of seeking a prórroga when the 4 or 5 year time allowed is up.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

From what I understand after having read a summary of the current amnesty program, persons who have provided INM with false information and/or fraudulent documentation are not covered. 

An expat who has established residency in Mexico but who lies about his/her status when doing a 'border run' (as an example) claiming to be entering Mexico for tourism purposes, has, a reasonable person will more than likely assume, provided false information and/or fraudulent documentation. 

Persons here who do not understand the difference between being in the country as a tourist and establishing residency ... probably ought to back to high school to re-visit English comprehension.  

And though border control agents, INM, have a fair amount of discretion on-the-spot, I think it's time for persons whose status is not regularized or in conformance with the regulations and who boast about loving Mexico so much ... to 'get right' with the authorities or suffer the consequences. Pretending to be ignorant of the regulation, or ignoring the regulations, is no defense to ones bad behavior. 

So there you have it! _Another opinion!_ :welcome:


----------



## maesonna (Jun 10, 2008)

Cristobal said:


> I was under the impression that one can stay indefinitely under Temporary Resident status simply by starting the process all over instead of seeking a prórroga when the 4 or 5 year time allowed is up.


 Sure, one can do that, but there is no guarantee of being accepted. I don’t know how great the risk of rejection might be, but it could happen. Again, it’s defeating the spirit of the new system, and by eliminating the “long-term temporary resident” option that used to exist via FM3, the authorities have been more explicit about that spirit.


----------



## ojosazules11 (Nov 3, 2013)

Longford said:


> From what you're telling us, it seems that you intend to reside/live in Mexico long-term, and that you won't be visiting as a short-term tourist. Therefore, if I'm interpreting/understanding what you've told us, residing in Mexico with permission given for tourism purposes, is contrary to the regulations and/or law.


The law makes no mention of "tourism" as the sole aim of someone entering the country on a 180 day permit. It simply states how many days of uninterrupted time they can remain in the country and that they cannot work.

_I. VISITANTE SIN PERMISO PARA REALIZAR ACTIVIDADES REMUNERADAS. Autoriza al extranjero para transitar o permanecer en territorio nacional por un tiempo ininterrumpido no mayor a ciento ochenta días, contados a partir de la fecha de entrada, sin permiso para realizar actividades sujetas a una remuneración en el país.

I. VISITOR WITHOUT PERMISSION FOR PAID ACTIVITIES. Authorizes the foreigner to travel through or remain in national territory for no more than one hundred and eighty days uninterrupted time, starting from the date of entry, without permission to carry out paid activities in the country._

Therefore if our OP enters as a visitor, marries a Mexican within 180 days and applies for a Resident Permit under the Family Ties (Vínculo Familiar) section of the legislation, then they are violating neither the letter nor the spirit of the law.

Of course they are not allowed to work on a Visitor's Permit - that *would* be a clear violation of the law.


----------



## ojosazules11 (Nov 3, 2013)

Longford said:


> From what I understand after having read a summary of the current amnesty program, persons who have provided INM with false information and/or fraudulent documentation are not covered.
> 
> An expat who has established residency in Mexico but who lies about his/her status when doing a 'border run' (as an example) claiming to be entering Mexico for tourism purposes, has, a reasonable person will more than likely assume, provided false information and/or fraudulent documentation.


I strongly suspect if someone with a valid 180 day FMM goes to INM to apply for the amnesty program, they will get this: 

With everything increasingly computerized, Mexican Immigration can see each time someone has entered the country. If someone is in Mexico on a valid FMM they are not here illegally and would not qualify for an amnesty program. That's basic high school logic.

I also think that accusing the border agents who allow foreigners in on serial 6 month permits of being lazy or corrupt is highly disrespectful. I am not blind to or ignorant of corruption in Mexico, but generally corruption involves some benefit to the official in question. My understanding is that in the vast majority of these cases, no bribe is asked for or even hinted at. If you read the Ley de Migración http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LMigra_301014.pdf you will see that near the end they spell out the penalties for immigration officials/employees abusing their position. I don't think the border agents would risk their livelihood just because they are too "lazy" to say no to someone who is repeatedly entering every 180 days. Besides, since it is computerized, others can see that this particular agent allowed that particular foreigner into the country, and if that were in violation of the law the agent would risk being censured.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

ojosazules11 said:


> Therefore if our OP enters as a visitor, marries a Mexican within 180 days and applies for a Resident Permit under the Family Ties (Vínculo Familiar) section of the legislation, then they are violating neither the letter nor the spirit of the law.


I think your assumption is accurate.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

Referring to many posts in this thread, not the last one or two…

What will we talk about if the question of the legality of serial tourist permits ever goes away completely. The forum will be a very boring place without this topic to argue about.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

TundraGreen said:


> Referring to many posts in this thread, not the last one or two…
> 
> What will we talk about if the question of the legality of serial tourist permits ever goes away completely. The forum will be a very boring place without this topic to argue about.


Anything is possible but we will not likely see this happening in our lifetime as too many foreigners from many countries own condos and houses here somewhere in Mexico, businesses also, and come and go often yearly when retired or independantly weathy especially in Baja, Cancun area, Puerto Vallarta and Mazatlán etc..


Some guy from NY has a 10 million dollar yacht in the marina in PV and ... wants to be limited to 180 days in 12 months ... might move it to the Bahamas along with his buddies in protest .


Their presence brings in more tourists themselves as friends, family etc. as well as keep the foreigners that visit these places rarely, feeling at home with many like themselves around and amenities foreigners living there use of provide. If too many left many areas would dry up somewhat and cause some places to become a less desirable tourist destinations. IMO There is a huge selling condo projects aimed at foreigners in Playa del Carmen and Cancum tht I presume they know tourist cards will be available to anyone in the future and not be locked out of their invested 6 months in a 12 month period.


I think some just can´t believe that the Mexican government wants foreigners to invest, buy, spend and and enjoy Mexico whenever the mood suits them without any problem and seem tainted because they are not here. IMO


----------



## ojosazules11 (Nov 3, 2013)

AlanMexicali said:


> Anything is possible but we will not likely see this happening in our lifetime as too many foreigners from many countries own condos and houses here somewhere in Mexico, businesses also, and come and go often yearly when retired or independantly weathy especially in Baja, Cancun area, Puerto Vallarta and Mazatlán etc..
> 
> ...


Alan, you're presuming it would be settled only if it's prohibited some day. It _might_ also be settled on this forum if someone who does the 180 day "border runs" openly states at the border that they are residing long-term in Mexico on serial 180 day *visitor* permits (using the language in the legislation, as opposed to the word "tourist"). If they are straightforward about this and still allowed in with no problem, that would be strong evidence that this is "legal", at least as the law is currently being applied. 

I did ask immigration at the Mexico City airport and was told it is NOT against the law. But of course my question was hypothetical, as I am unfortunately not currently residing long-term in Mexico, and when that day comes I should qualify for residency in a few categories, so I'll probably never be in a position to put it to the test.


----------



## Belizegirl (Oct 21, 2010)

ojosazules11 said:


> Alan, you're presuming it would be settled only if it's prohibited some day. It _might_ also be settled on this forum if someone who does the 180 day "border runs" openly states at the border that they are residing long-term in Mexico on serial 180 day *visitor* permits (using the language in the legislation, as opposed to the word "tourist"). If they are straightforward about this and still allowed in with no problem, that would be strong evidence that this is "legal", at least as the law is currently being applied.
> 
> I did ask immigration at the Mexico City airport and was told it is NOT against the law. But of course my question was hypothetical, as I am unfortunately not currently residing long-term in Mexico, and when that day comes I should qualify for residency in a few categories, so I'll probably never be in a position to put it to the test.


Each and every time myself and my family come back to Mexico as serial 180 day visitors, I openly tell the immigration officer that we live in Mexico. 

In five years we had not had a problem, until we were yelled at by the immigration officer at the BZ/MX border recently, he said he was going to put a note in our file. We were able to speak the supervisor and he said what we were doing was legal. It was the end of the immigration officers shift and he was yelling at everyone, the Mennonites, the Belizians, everyone. 

We will be applying for residency this summer as my boys are growing and I would like them to be able to legally work when they are ready/of age to. We may have an issue getting residency for one son, for reasons I mentioned on the forum once upon a time ago.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

AlanMexicali said:


> Anything is possible but we will not likely see this happening in our lifetime as too many foreigners from many countries own condos and houses here somewhere in Mexico, businesses also, and come and go often yearly when retired or independantly weathy especially in Baja, Cancun area, Puerto Vallarta and Mazatlán etc..
> 
> 
> Some guy from NY has a 10 million dollar yacht in the marina in PV and ... wants to be limited to 180 days in 12 months ... might move it to the Bahamas along with his buddies in protest .
> ...


I wasn't suggesting that the question would be settled by the Mexican government making them illegal. It could just as easily be settled if the Mexican government changed the language to explicitly state that there is no restriction on multiple permits.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

TundraGreen said:


> I wasn't suggesting that the question would be settled by the Mexican government making them illegal. It could just as easily be settled if the Mexican government changed the language to explicitly state that there is no restriction on multiple permits.


You posted it as if you were stating if INM adds a clause stating 180 day FMM visitante permits can be issued continuosly at the discretion of the INM officer at the that time of a request from any foreigner as did similarly ojosazules11. But I read it as the exact opposite. I read it as if INM added a law or rule stating 180 FMM visitante cards are only issued for 180 days maximun in a 12 month period.

By default if INM doesn´t add anything to the rules or law being legally in Mexico includes 180 day FMM visitante cards, as many as you request in a 12 month period and as many as any INM oficer is willing to give any foreigner. What is the difference if they state it or not, it is the law and rules already.

It appears some people have problems understanding legal jargon or symanics well enough.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

AlanMexicali said:


> You posted it as if you were stating if INM adds a clause stating 180 day FMM visitante permits can be issued continuosly at the discretion of the INM officer at the that time of a request from any foreigner as did similarly ojosazules11. But I read it as the exact opposite. I read it as if INM added a law or rule stating 180 FMM visitante cards are only issued for 180 days maximun in a 12 month period.
> 
> By default if INM doesn´t add anything to the rules or law being legally in Mexico includes 180 day FMM visitante cards, as many as you request in a 12 month period and as many as any INM oficer is willing to give any foreigner. What is the difference if they state it or not, it is the law and rules already.
> 
> It appears some people have problems understanding legal jargon and/or symantics well enough.


Edited for spelling error.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

AlanMexicali said:


> You posted it as if you were stating if INM adds a clause stating 180 day FMM visitante permits can be issued continuosly at the discretion of the INM officer at the that time of a request from any foreigner as did similarly ojosazules11. But I read it as the exact opposite. I read it as if INM added a law or rule stating 180 FMM visitante cards are only issued for 180 days maximun in a 12 month period.
> 
> By default if INM doesn´t add anything to the rules or law being legally in Mexico includes 180 day FMM visitante cards, as many as you request in a 12 month period and as many as any INM oficer is willing to give any foreigner. What is the difference if they state it or not, it is the law and rules already.
> 
> It appears some people have problems understanding legal jargon or symantics well enough.


We are on the same side in this discussion. The difference is that, if they stated explicitly that multiple permits were legal, it might end this endless discussion.


----------



## ojosazules11 (Nov 3, 2013)

Belizegirl said:


> Each and every time myself and my family come back to Mexico as serial 180 day visitors, I openly tell the immigration officer that we live in Mexico.
> 
> In five years we had not had a problem, until we were yelled at by the immigration officer at the BZ/MX border recently, he said he was going to put a note in our file. We were able to speak the supervisor and he said what we were doing was legal. It was the end of the immigration officers shift and he was yelling at everyone, the Mennonites, the Belizians, everyone.
> 
> We will be applying for residency this summer as my boys are growing and I would like them to be able to legally work when they are ready/of age to. We may have an issue getting residency for one son, for reasons I mentioned on the forum once upon a time ago.


Thanks, BG. Now we'll see if this settles the issue on this forum for the time being. A few times the posters who believe that residing here on serial 180 day permits circumvents the law have challenged those who do this to state openly at the border that they are actually living in Mexico long-term, to see how Immigration responds.

Well, since you've been doing that and only had problems with one grumpy agent who was overruled by their supervisor, that's pretty strong evidence that this violates neither the letter nor the spirit of the law.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

TundraGreen said:


> We are on the same side in this discussion. The difference is that, if they stated explicitly that multiple permits were legal, it might end this endless discussion.


I understand both things you mentioned. Thanks.


I also understand if it is not stated as being illegal it is legal. Same as every law and rule in all countries.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

ojosazules11 said:


> Well, since you've been doing that and only had problems with one grumpy agent who was overruled by their supervisor, that's pretty strong evidence that this violates neither the letter nor the spirit of the law.


I think you're trying pretty hard to convince ... _yourself_.


----------



## Isla Verde (Oct 19, 2011)

Longford said:


> I think you're trying pretty hard to convince ... _yourself_.


As do you, Longford .


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

The present system allows for flexibility and the discretion of the INM officer observing the applicant. Lets face it; some folks just look undesirable and might get turned away. In such cases, the present system avoids the likelihood of arguments and also allows for issuing shorter periods of time on the FMM, passing the responsibility to the applicant to visit INM inside Mexico to apply for an extension to the 180 day limit. That will involve a fee and an interview at a place less busy than the border.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

Longford said:


> I think you're trying pretty hard to convince ... _yourself_.


No! Everyone here, except coondawg, is trying pretty hard to convince you that you are wrong and educate you in the way laws and rules actually work and are carried out in reality. 

It appears you like the little game of getting some attention here that you are playing by repeating the same old tired, but effective, line about corrupt, lazy, indifferent INM officials not following the rules to get people to respond to your posts. What 6 or 7 times now?. IMO LOL..:heh:


----------

