Filing for K1 after nikah in Pakistan

[Adzy 0]

You're still confusing USCIS and the Consulate. When the fiancee visa is denied, USCIS may well reaffirm the petition and send it back to Islamabad. It's the Consulates carrying out this "no fiancee visa when there's a Nikah, not USCIS. These are separate agencies that have had ongoing power struggles for decades. USCIS doesn't issue visas.

Good point. Ok no more confusions for me. Another trip to Pakistan .. phew

[Myopia 93]

You're still confusing USCIS and the Consulate. When the fiancee visa is denied, USCIS may well reaffirm the petition and send it back to Islamabad. It's the Consulates carrying out this "no fiancee visa when there's a Nikah, not USCIS. These are separate agencies that have had ongoing power struggles for decades. USCIS doesn't issue visas.

This is what I think you are confused with. Its really simple and you have not addressed it in any of your replies which is why I am staying on it.

I dont want the OP to be confused in this matter.

You have a consummated marriage with the Pakistan woman prior to obtaining a divorce. You do NOT have a fiancee anymore.

You said he had a marriage with the second wife whilst married to the first wife. Forget the fact that he is about to be divorced civilly. He is probably already divorced Islamically. But because USCIS/Consulate doesnt follow Islamic law then they are bound by the law that does apply and that is American law. In American law as applied by USCIS AND the consulates-plural marriages are invalid for immigration purposes.

There is no confusion there.

The whole "too married" thing sounds like a red herring. Sorry. The reality is he isnt married under US law to anyone but the first wife.

[pushbrk 12,824]

This is what I think you are confused with. Its really simple and you have not addressed it in any of your replies which is why I am staying on it.

I dont want the OP to be confused in this matter.

You said he had a marriage with the second wife whilst married to the first wife. Forget the fact that he is about to be divorced civilly. He is probably already divorced Islamically. But because USCIS/Consulate doesnt follow Islamic law then they are bound by the law that does apply and that is American law. In American law as applied by USCIS AND the consulates-plural marriages are invalid for immigration purposes.

There is no confusion there.

The whole "too married" thing sounds like a red herring. Sorry. The reality is he isnt married under US law to anyone but the first wife.

I would agree with that argument but in my experience, the Consulate won't. You can argue that they're wrong, and I'll agree with you. It's like saying the boss is wrong. He may be wrong but he's still the boss.

[Myopia 93]

I would agree with that argument but in my experience, the Consulate won't. You can argue that they're wrong, and I'll agree with you. It's like saying the boss is wrong. He may be wrong but he's still the boss.

Yup I get that.

Thanks

[Imagination 15]

How come US law recognizes marriage under Islamic law but doesn't recognize divorce under Islamic law?

[afoyoswa 178]

What I don't understand is how that nikkah will be relevant to his petition when the consulate and USCIS by default will not be able to take it into consideration because it was a invalid marriage.

Its an invalid marriage for immigration purposes so not like the situations that you mentioned.

I understand about unregistered nikkahs etc but what you are saying in effect is a polygomous marriage IS relevant for USCIS purposes and that does seem rather ridiculous because it is contradictory to public policy.

It made perfect sense to me. No fiance visa because the consulate will suspect him to be already married, having had a religious ceremony there, and will at the same time be disturbed that he was not single then. And no spouse visa because the marriage is not valid for immigration purposes, since it was performed when he was not free to marry. Leaving him caught somewhere in the no-man's land between "not married" and "married" (for immigration purposes).

A do-over would only potentially help with the spouse visa option, but the relationship timeline would still be a source of great interest and potential problems for the consulate. (And I'm not sure, from my limited experience, what a lawyer would contribute to this, having already read about quite a few cases of "But my *lawyer* said..." information that were very much at odds with what eventually happened at the consulate, who are the ones who ultimately get to make the decision.)

Edited March 15, 2012 by afoyoswa

[pm5k 129]

On 3/14/2012 at 3:59 PM, Imagination said:

How come US law recognizes marriage under Islamic law but doesn't recognize divorce under Islamic law?

There is much confusion regarding this.

In Pakistan, the Islamic Marriage document (Nikah Nama - "marriage contract") is also the legal marriage document for Muslims.  

The Pakistani divorce document is finalized after three months, which is also the Islamic divorce procedure (the civil law of Pakistan is based on the religious law in this case)

 

What commonly happens is:

1. Person informally (verbally, or on a notarized affidavit) divorces someone.   They believe that being in Pakistan, this informal divorce is equivalent to legal divorce.  

2. This misunderstanding is so common that marriage registrars, civil registrars, and even lawyers believe this to be true, and have no issues solemnizing a subsequent marriage.  The fact that polygamy is allowed also makes this less of a concern.

 

Solution:

1.  Person needs to remarry, again, after the divorce is finalized.  The full three months (90 days) must be between the date of initiation of divorce filings and date of effectiveness of divorce (as shown on the legal certificate)

 

There was recently a case (one can search USCIS non-precedant decisions) regarding this.  The beneficiary was informally divorced, and got married.  Petitioner submitted an application, but it was denied.  Beneficiary even said that they truly thought they were divorced, but USCIS denied the petition stating that the beneficiary was "not free to marry" 

Edited April 15, 2020 by pm5k
clarification

[millefleur 5,046]

**Zombie thread locked from further comment; thread is from 2011-2012**

 

VJ Moderation