Fiance visa to expire

[aussiewench 9]

You might consider calling Lawyers Referral Service, and for about $25 you can get an 'initial consultation' with a immigration attorney. (I dont think a pre-nup would circumvent the financial obligation to the government you already signed).

Bill

Bill,

If you are referring the I-134 submitted for the interview, it is not legally binding.

Edited October 2, 2006 by aussiewench

[TucsonBill 0]

You might consider calling Lawyers Referral Service, and for about $25 you can get an 'initial consultation' with a immigration attorney. (I dont think a pre-nup would circumvent the financial obligation to the government you already signed).

Bill

Bill,

If you are referring the I-134 submitted for the interview, it is not legally binding.

Ok, I was thinking of the I-864, and if I understand it correctely, that must be done AFTER they marry, and as far as I know, that is legally binding. (And I doubt a pre-nup would circumvent it either)

Bill

Edited October 2, 2006 by TucsonBill

[William33 110]

cris77,

I would suggest a "cooling off" period for you guys. Although you seem eager to proceed, your Fiance is unsure at this stage. Difficult to imagine starting the process all over again, but it may reveal to your Fiance what she really wants from this relationship. Time apart has a way of doing that. Just a thought.

In any case, I hope it works out for you!!

In less than a month my fiance's K1 visa will expire. She want's to be sure about the marriage and does not want to marry just because of the 90 day requirement. I was ready to go ahead with the marriage but of course I am now worried if she is not ready.

She was thinking that she could staya and marry later. But she now understands that on day 91 she will be out of status and must return to her home country, or she is an illegal with probably no chance of ever getting permanent residency. If she returns to her home country, she is thinking that she can apply for a fiance or spouse visa later. I cannot imagine going through this process again, not to mention the expense.

Many questions arrise.

Can she request an extension of the K1?

If she returns to her home country, and we cancel the current K1, what is the likelyhood that another K1, or K3 spouse visa will be approved later on?

What is the likelyhood of her being approved for a tourist visa, so that we could see each other?

If she over stays and we marry a few months from now, I would think an application for adjustment of status would be shot down and she would be deported?

[together2love 0]

If you want "less opinion/more knowledge," seek an lawyers opinion. Good luck.

[William33 110]

What? The K-1 visa facts have been clearly revealed here. One does not need an attorney to understand the 90 day rule of the K-1. Simple clarification is all that is required.

Productive opinion and decent advice is all that is left.

Providing sound advice is helpful; and is the fundamental purpose of this site.

If you want "less opinion/more knowledge," seek an lawyers opinion. Good luck.

[Yodrak 7]

Bill,

The I-864 is a contract between the Sponsor and the US government. A pre-nup is a contract between two individuals.

Yodrak

Ok, I was thinking of the I-864, ... and as far as I know, that is legally binding. (And I doubt a pre-nup would circumvent it either)

Bill

[TucsonBill 0]

Yordak,

I know what a pre-nup is. It was suggested by someone else that the OP marry his fiance and have a strong pre-nup and then tear it up if things worked out. Generally, among other things, pre-nups often limit the financial responsibility of the parties to one another in the event of a divorce. I was just expressing my opinion that a pre-nup probably would not negate or circumvent the financial responsibilities the sposor agrees to I-864, which I also believe to be legally binding.

Bill,

The I-864 is a contract between the Sponsor and the US government. A pre-nup is a contract between two individuals.

Yodrak

Ok, I was thinking of the I-864, ... and as far as I know, that is legally binding. (And I doubt a pre-nup would circumvent it either)

Bill

Edited October 2, 2006 by TucsonBill

[Yodrak 7]

Bill,

Glad to see you expressing your opinion more strongly. In your two previous posts in this thread where you mentioned the issue you seemed uncertain.

Yodrak

Yordak,

I know what a pre-nup is. It was suggested by someone else that the OP marry his fiance and have a strong pre-nup and then tear it up if things worked out. Generally, among other things, pre-nups often limit the financial responsibility of the parties to one another in the event of a divorce. I was just expressing my opinion that a pre-nup probably would not negate or circumvent the financial responsibilities the sposor agrees to I-864, which I also believe to be legally binding.

Bill,

The I-864 is a contract between the Sponsor and the US government. A pre-nup is a contract between two individuals.

Yodrak

Ok, I was thinking of the I-864, ... and as far as I know, that is legally binding. (And I doubt a pre-nup would circumvent it either)

Bill

Edited October 2, 2006 by Yodrak

[zxed 0]

k1,k3,aos... all that require an interview require you to come in and swear truth, your signatures on the applications bind you to the contractual obligations of the jargon, so with that said

a K1 visa "travel doc that allows a foreign fiance(e) of a us citizen to enter the us for the sole purpose of getting married within 90 days", during interviews or just by submiting the application you are claiming that you are satisfying and know of all the requirements. in a way, its saying "We will marry in 90 days, in the US", there is no clause that stops the marriage from not taking place. it is important however that after it expiring the person leave and try to get approved for a new K1 app, it might / might not get approved, they will want to know why the marriage didnt take place the first time.

You can always go to the other country get married there and THEN file for her to come over.. or try your luck again.... i guess what pissed a lot of people off was this statement "She want's to be sure about the marriage and does not want to marry just because of the 90 day requirement"

That itself is kind of a, lets say, ditsy/stupid/retarted statement, as the application you filed was just for that.... coming to the US and getting married within 90 days.,

i dont know your life story., but i married my wife 3 times , once in vegas (legally), then my parents flew in from abroad (spiritual/religious), and then we had a big (200+) wedding... anyway.,

[over 0]

In less than a month my fiance's K1 visa will expire. She want's to be sure about the marriage and does not want to marry just because of the 90 day requirement. I was ready to go ahead with the marriage but of course I am now worried if she is not ready.

She was thinking that she could staya and marry later. But she now understands that on day 91 she will be out of status and must return to her home country, or she is an illegal with probably no chance of ever getting permanent residency. If she returns to her home country, she is thinking that she can apply for a fiance or spouse visa later. I cannot imagine going through this process again, not to mention the expense.

Many questions arrise.

Can she request an extension of the K1?

If she returns to her home country, and we cancel the current K1, what is the likelyhood that another K1, or K3 spouse visa will be approved later on?

What is the likelyhood of her being approved for a tourist visa, so that we could see each other?

If she over stays and we marry a few months from now, I would think an application for adjustment of status would be shot down and she would be deported?

Son, I would count my blessings, and do as so many others have said.

If by now, she has decided that she is not sure, run like there is no tomorrow. Been there,done that.

It's all about green cards, and selfishness. In so many instances as mine, I found out that in so many cases, they have been coached and educated by others who have literally educated them in every step and procedure to get to the U.S. by any means available. This is done to help ther families, them selves, or some one who is already here that they met on line or elsewhere prior. Your gambling with your life, your expenses, and your heart. And once you sign those papers, you are endebted to them per specs of the affidavit of support until they die or become a citizen,or earn credits of time in employment. that's a long time to be responsible if she leaves you. I would send her back and meet some one who really cares, and wants to marry you...trust me. As they say, It some times takes meeting the wrong person, in order to know the right one when that happens. Don't be the one left crying, and remembering the hurt forever. It only takes a moment to fall in love, but a lifetime to forget. If you want to ask some one who's been there, contact me. I'll tell you what your in for. Move on ...and let your heart do the same. Good luck. I hope you make the right decision, for you and your heart.

[SirLancelot 1]

You might consider calling Lawyers Referral Service, and for about $25 you can get an 'initial consultation' with a immigration attorney. (I dont think a pre-nup would circumvent the financial obligation to the government you already signed).

Bill

Bill,

If you are referring the I-134 submitted for the interview, it is not legally binding.

Aussiewench, refresh my memory please, perhaps I asked already somewhere else, but if it's not legally binding, then why do they request it at all? And if it's not legally binding, then can the petitioner put false information on the form?

Also, if we assume the I-134 AoS is binding, then does it take effect ONLY after the marriage or when the petition is approved? I'm just wondering if during the 90 day period when the fiance(e) first enters the US, is the petitioner already liable for their beneficiary financially, or ONLY after they enter into a legal marriage.

Thanks.

[aussiewench 9]

You might consider calling Lawyers Referral Service, and for about $25 you can get an 'initial consultation' with a immigration attorney. (I dont think a pre-nup would circumvent the financial obligation to the government you already signed).

Bill

Bill,

If you are referring the I-134 submitted for the interview, it is not legally binding.

Aussiewench, refresh my memory please, perhaps I asked already somewhere else, but if it's not legally binding, then why do they request it at all? And if it's not legally binding, then can the petitioner put false information on the form?

Also, if we assume the I-134 AoS is binding, then does it take effect ONLY after the marriage or when the petition is approved? I'm just wondering if during the 90 day period when the fiance(e) first enters the US, is the petitioner already liable for their beneficiary financially, or ONLY after they enter into a legal marriage.

Thanks.

Whilst the I-134 can be requested, it is not a requirement of the K visa. It is but one thing that a conof may use to determine to determine if the applicant will or wont become a public charge. Hence why other documentation outside of what the I-134 states, may also be requested. eg some consulates ask for one years tax returns, others 3 years. I can think of one consulate that won't accept a joint-sponsor in many cases where as most other consulates will. Some consulates dont require the I-134 at all. The I-134 is basically a moot point once visa is in hand and has entered the US. It is merely used as a part of eligibility for a visa.

The legally binding document is the I-864 which came about for exactly this purpose. It requires a lot more documentation etc and is more stringent. Marriage and the affidavit of support are two seperate things when it comes to the financial responsibilities. eg the I-864 is still legally binding even if the marriage ends in divorce. A joint sponsor (who may not even be a family member) is also legally bound by the I-864.

[SirLancelot 1]

You might consider calling Lawyers Referral Service, and for about $25 you can get an 'initial consultation' with a immigration attorney. (I dont think a pre-nup would circumvent the financial obligation to the government you already signed).

Bill

Bill,

If you are referring the I-134 submitted for the interview, it is not legally binding.

Aussiewench, refresh my memory please, perhaps I asked already somewhere else, but if it's not legally binding, then why do they request it at all? And if it's not legally binding, then can the petitioner put false information on the form?

Also, if we assume the I-134 AoS is binding, then does it take effect ONLY after the marriage or when the petition is approved? I'm just wondering if during the 90 day period when the fiance(e) first enters the US, is the petitioner already liable for their beneficiary financially, or ONLY after they enter into a legal marriage.

Thanks.

Whilst the I-134 can be requested, it is not a requirement of the K visa. It is but one thing that a conof may use to determine to determine if the applicant will or wont become a public charge. Hence why other documentation outside of what the I-134 states, may also be requested. eg some consulates ask for one years tax returns, others 3 years. I can think of one consulate that won't accept a joint-sponsor in many cases where as most other consulates will. Some consulates dont require the I-134 at all. The I-134 is basically a moot point once visa is in hand and has entered the US. It is merely used as a part of eligibility for a visa.

The legally binding document is the I-864 which came about for exactly this purpose. It requires a lot more documentation etc and is more stringent. Marriage and the affidavit of support are two seperate things when it comes to the financial responsibilities. eg the I-864 is still legally binding even if the marriage ends in divorce. A joint sponsor (who may not even be a family member) is also legally bound by the I-864.

Alright. So if a beneficiary were to come in on a I-864, then the beneficiary would be able to sue the petitioner for financial support EVEN before they got married. But coming into the US on a I-134 wouldn't allow the beneficiary to sue, either before or after the marriage, because it most likely won't be found to be legally binding by a judge.

I think I'm getting the full picture. Thanks.

[Mew 0]

Alright. So if a beneficiary were to come in on a I-864, then the beneficiary would be able to sue the petitioner for financial support EVEN before they got married. But coming into the US on a I-134 wouldn't allow the beneficiary to sue, either before or after the marriage, because it most likely won't be found to be legally binding by a judge.

I think I'm getting the full picture. Thanks.

About I-864:

Enforceability of Affidavits

Under the 1996 law, the I-864 affidavit of support is a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor and the federal government. The intended beneficiaries are the sponsored immigrant and any federal, state or local government agency or private entity that provides a means-tested benefit to the immigrant. Any of the intended beneficiaries can sue the sponsor. Sponsored immigrants can sue to force the sponsor to maintain them at least at 125 percent of the federal poverty level. Moreover, should the immigrant ever obtain a means-tested benefit, the agency or entity that provided that benefit can sue the sponsor for reimbursement. INA Û 213A(e), 8 U.S.C. Û 1183a(e); 8 C.F.R. Û 213a.2(d).

For example, if the sponsored immigrant has received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits based on age or disability, the federal government can ask the sponsor to reimburse the full amount of the monthly benefit. Or if Medicaid covered a sponsored immigrant's hospital bill, both the state and federal governments can sue to collect reimbursement of their respective share of the costs. Faced with the prospect of such costs, a lot of otherwise faithful relatives may balk at signing the new affidavit of support form.

Under the new law, sponsors have to commit to supporting the sponsored immigrant until the immigrant has: (1) become a naturalized U.S. citizen; (2) worked at least 10 years in this country; (3) left the United States permanently; or (4) died. INA Û 213A(a)(2), (3), 8 U.S.C. Û 1183a(a)(2), (3); 8 C.F.R. Û 213a.2(e). A divorce does not nullify the sponsorship agreement. Thus, a spouse who sponsors an immigrant remains liable to support his or her spouse at 125 percent of the federal poverty level even if they get divorced, until one of the four conditions listed above occurs.

from http://www.twmlaw.com/resources/immigrant/immigrant4cont.htm

About I-134:

Nevertheless, there still are circumstances when Form I-134 will be beneficial. This affidavit, submitted by the

applicant at your request, is not legally binding on the sponsor and should not be accorded the same weight as Form I-864.

from: http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0940041N.pdf

[SirLancelot 1]

Yikes, that I-864 is VERY dangerous. Given to the wrong beneficiary, s/he could use it to their extreme advantage. Thank god most Consulates don't require the I-1864 for a K1 visa. If they did, an unscrupulous beneficiary could entered the US with an I-864 then decide NOT to marry and over stay their visa and sue the petitioner for financial support. Unless and until the federal government deports the beneficiary, the petitioner would need to support the beneficiary in the US. That would SUCK!

Thanks Mew for the links.

Alright. So if a beneficiary were to come in on a I-864, then the beneficiary would be able to sue the petitioner for financial support EVEN before they got married. But coming into the US on a I-134 wouldn't allow the beneficiary to sue, either before or after the marriage, because it most likely won't be found to be legally binding by a judge.

I think I'm getting the full picture. Thanks.

About I-864:

Enforceability of Affidavits

Under the 1996 law, the I-864 affidavit of support is a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor and the federal government. The intended beneficiaries are the sponsored immigrant and any federal, state or local government agency or private entity that provides a means-tested benefit to the immigrant. Any of the intended beneficiaries can sue the sponsor. Sponsored immigrants can sue to force the sponsor to maintain them at least at 125 percent of the federal poverty level. Moreover, should the immigrant ever obtain a means-tested benefit, the agency or entity that provided that benefit can sue the sponsor for reimbursement. INA Û 213A(e), 8 U.S.C. Û 1183a(e); 8 C.F.R. Û 213a.2(d).

For example, if the sponsored immigrant has received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits based on age or disability, the federal government can ask the sponsor to reimburse the full amount of the monthly benefit. Or if Medicaid covered a sponsored immigrant's hospital bill, both the state and federal governments can sue to collect reimbursement of their respective share of the costs. Faced with the prospect of such costs, a lot of otherwise faithful relatives may balk at signing the new affidavit of support form.

Under the new law, sponsors have to commit to supporting the sponsored immigrant until the immigrant has: (1) become a naturalized U.S. citizen; (2) worked at least 10 years in this country; (3) left the United States permanently; or (4) died. INA Û 213A(a)(2), (3), 8 U.S.C. Û 1183a(a)(2), (3); 8 C.F.R. Û 213a.2(e). A divorce does not nullify the sponsorship agreement. Thus, a spouse who sponsors an immigrant remains liable to support his or her spouse at 125 percent of the federal poverty level even if they get divorced, until one of the four conditions listed above occurs.

from http://www.twmlaw.com/resources/immigrant/immigrant4cont.htm

About I-134:

Nevertheless, there still are circumstances when Form I-134 will be beneficial. This affidavit, submitted by the

applicant at your request, is not legally binding on the sponsor and should not be accorded the same weight as Form I-864.

from: http://foia.state.gov/masterdocs/09fam/0940041N.pdf

Edited October 8, 2006 by SirLancelot