Question as with MARM's thread for Indian citizens

[Saddle Bronc 124]

(admittedly, visa was already issued and we've been married nearly three years--waiting on Conditions Removal)

"If you all with Indian spouses/ fiances had to go through the process all over again or had a chance to change your petition, would you still stick with the type of petition that you filed? Or would you go for a different one than the path you have chosen?

CR-1/IR-1, K-3, K-1 or 'other'?"

In my case, the answer actually falls (under the following conditions) into the "other":

• INS/State Dept had actually trained officious for NAFTA-cognisance
• longer-term (3-year; at the time the length was 1 year, which gave CO's lots of excuse to deny) TN-1 had been available

then I could probably have gotten married much sooner (assumptions: that I had started search prior to October 1997, gotten married in 1998 and petitioned for wife to get Consular-issue TD--on which wife could have entered). Edited March 27, 2009 by CherryXS

[catknit 144]

Since the New Delhi consulate has lovingly made us file again [yeah, still bitter]...

We are completely avoiding the K1 and getting married then filing CR1. As to whether from stateside or as DCF has yet to be decided....

[trinket 30]

We went through IR-1 and it went all smoothly. We had a couple of red flags, the biggest one was that we didn't meet physically for 4 years after getting married.....just economic stuff, accident, loss of job, bad financial decisions.

I am just so glad that I didn't have to go through Delhi embassy, all I have heard are the horror stories from there, well barring a few good ones. But I was pretty confident that we would get RFE of some sort, but well we didn't and it went all fine.

[MrsAyilliath 0]

If I knew then what i know now, we would have definitely gone the CR1 route or at least rescheduled our AOS interview which was literally three days away from our two year anniversary which caused us to have the conditional greencard. But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

[CJ Vasani 0]

(admittedly, visa was already issued and we've been married nearly three years--waiting on Conditions Removal)

"If you all with Indian spouses/ fiances had to go through the process all over again or had a chance to change your petition, would you still stick with the type of petition that you filed? Or would you go for a different one than the path you have chosen?

CR-1/IR-1, K-3, K-1 or 'other'?"

In my case, the answer actually falls (under the following conditions) into the "other":

• INS/State Dept had actually trained officious for NAFTA-cognisance
• longer-term (3-year; at the time the length was 1 year, which gave CO's lots of excuse to deny) TN-1 had been available

then I could probably have gotten married much sooner (assumptions: that I had started search prior to October 1997, gotten married in 1998 and petitioned for wife to get Consular-issue TD--on which wife could have entered).

I want to understand this better. Can you please explain your statements above to the layman (i.e. me)?

I chose K3 and regretted it, since I eventually took the CR1 route. The approval process at the USCIS level would've been much quicker had I stuck just with the I-130. Filing I-129F created delays (as it was evident by following other members on VJ) that cost us approximately 3-4 months in the end. For married filers, going for K3 is not purposeful any longer given the NVC shortcuts. In past, the NVC used to be another journey after completing the USCIS stage. Now, NVC is just a pit stop.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

(admittedly, visa was already issued and we've been married nearly three years--waiting on Conditions Removal)

"If you all with Indian spouses/ fiances had to go through the process all over again or had a chance to change your petition, would you still stick with the type of petition that you filed? Or would you go for a different one than the path you have chosen?

CR-1/IR-1, K-3, K-1 or 'other'?"

In my case, the answer actually falls (under the following conditions) into the "other":

• INS/State Dept had actually trained officious for NAFTA-cognisance
• longer-term (3-year; at the time the length was 1 year, which gave CO's lots of excuse to deny) TN-1 had been available

then I could probably have gotten married much sooner (assumptions: that I had started search prior to October 1997, gotten married in 1998 and petitioned for wife to get Consular-issue TD--on which wife could have entered).

I want to understand this better. Can you please explain your statements above to the layman (i.e. me)?

I chose K3 and regretted it, since I eventually took the CR1 route. The approval process at the USCIS level would've been much quicker had I stuck just with the I-130. Filing I-129F created delays (as it was evident by following other members on VJ) that cost us approximately 3-4 months in the end. For married filers, going for K3 is not purposeful any longer given the NVC shortcuts. In past, the NVC used to be another journey after completing the USCIS stage. Now, NVC is just a pit stop.

The route I eventually chose was naturalisation followed by K-1 petition.

In 1997, I had an approved I-140 but could not proceed further due to having been filed as EB-3 when I qualified (having MSCS) for EB-2--due to being born in India, that made a huge difference. I was working at the time on a TN-1 (1-year valid¹ visa, issuable only to Canadians--I had been naturalised to Canada in 1982). Basically, that result was a complete disaster, as I could not get a marriage done to an Indian citizen (unless she happened to be already present in US on H1-b or R-1--which reduced the potential pool too far for searching²; a spouse with GC already in hand would also have been disastrous³). Also, you're familiar with H1-b quotas? Well, the I-140 approval was completed after the FY-1998 quota had already been saturated.

Basically, had the conditions been exactly as I specified, I could have gotten married (to a Born-again Christian from India) up to a good seven years before I was naturalised to US.

Notes:

1. in October 2008 (three years after I was naturalised, and almost nine after I got my GC), the validity term of TN-1 was upped to 3 years
2. You can do the demographics math using percentages to see how difficult it would be to find a desi (and not ABCD) Born-again Christian
3. I would not have been able to renew my TN-1 visa after the marriage, as it would be "red-flagged" as seeking immigration (though surprisingly the existing approved I-140 didn't)

[CJ Vasani 0]

this is truly a special scenario...must be documented. I, actually, knew a born-again desi Indian from India...in my undergrad years in New York.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

(pre-emptive strike post)

Also true that under another set of circumstances, I could have gotten married earlier (and had entirely different process):

• willingness to marry non-desi USC
• that I had been able to convince Bro. Joe of its workability (as fiancée in that case would not be LEF-affiliated)
• willingness to do wedding in US (I really wasn't very enthused at the prospect until somewhat before I filed N-400)
• that we'd "iron out" the issue of which church to attend regularly

[Saddle Bronc 124]

(pre-emptive strike post)

Also true that under another set of circumstances, I could have gotten married earlier (and had entirely different process):

• willingness to marry non-desi USC
• that I had been able to convince Bro. Joe of its workability (as fiancée in that case would not be LEF-affiliated)
• willingness to do wedding in US (I really wasn't very enthused at the prospect until somewhat before I filed N-400)
• that we'd "iron out" the issue of which church to attend regularly

Oops, posted this when fatigued and counting-down clock--forgetting that the "pre-emptive strike" actually was out-of-scope for the thread.