PLEASE HELP US! K-1 QUESTIONS

[TBoneTX 46,129]

I would like to ask that people still try and be respectful of each other, even when they disagree.

Si, man (please).

[mox 298]

- Yes, your right, not illegal, and I never said it was did I?

- Don't you think they will question why, when they state at the POE, that it was just for pleasure, and all of a sudden there is a marriage, that it could raise eyebrows as to the intentions of the couple?

One of these two sentences does not go with the other. If marriage on a tourist visa isn't illegal, and you KNOW it's not illegal, then why on earth would there be a problem down the road?

What I am suggesting is to think through the possible problems down the road, not just want he wants for the moment.

You didn't read this post did you?

Can you find any example at all here on VJ where a couple had problems doing this? Anywhere? You are clearly confused, and in your confusion you are muddying the waters. This isn't a philosophical exercise on kindergarten ethics. This is the real world, and it's real people. Many people have told you exactly what the deal is, and you are stubbornly clinging to misinformation of your own devising.

Think of it this way. The purpose of the interviewer at the consulate is not to prove that a relationship is bonafide, but rather fraudulent. Would you want the fact that you withheld your true intent at the POE hanging over your head? They might wonder what else you are withholding, or perhaps it may never even be brought up. But that fear will be there won't it. I know that if I was the interviewer, and I had this information, I would be very wary of his morality.

Again, conjecture. You don't know, and you haven't bothered to understand or do the research.

As I stated, everyone is free to think as they want, and everyone is free to choose their own path. All I am suggesting is the possible consequences to their actions.

You "suggestions" are misinformation backed only by your own black and white interpretation of a minor detail that has been explained ad nauseum to you. Stop it.

[pushbrk 13,118]

- Yes, your right, not illegal, and I never said it was did I?

- Don't you think they will question why, when they state at the POE, that it was just for pleasure, and all of a sudden there is a marriage, that it could raise eyebrows as to the intentions of the couple?

One of these two sentences does not go with the other. If marriage on a tourist visa isn't illegal, and you KNOW it's not illegal, then why on earth would there be a problem down the road?

What I am suggesting is to think through the possible problems down the road, not just want he wants for the moment.

You didn't read this post did you?

Can you find any example at all here on VJ where a couple had problems doing this? Anywhere? You are clearly confused, and in your confusion you are muddying the waters. This isn't a philosophical exercise on kindergarten ethics. This is the real world, and it's real people. Many people have told you exactly what the deal is, and you are stubbornly clinging to misinformation of your own devising.

Think of it this way. The purpose of the interviewer at the consulate is not to prove that a relationship is bonafide, but rather fraudulent. Would you want the fact that you withheld your true intent at the POE hanging over your head? They might wonder what else you are withholding, or perhaps it may never even be brought up. But that fear will be there won't it. I know that if I was the interviewer, and I had this information, I would be very wary of his morality.

Again, conjecture. You don't know, and you haven't bothered to understand or do the research.

As I stated, everyone is free to think as they want, and everyone is free to choose their own path. All I am suggesting is the possible consequences to their actions.

You "suggestions" are misinformation backed only by your own black and white interpretation of a minor detail that has been explained ad nauseum to you. Stop it.

Just for the record, three other OP's have presented similar circumstances in threads opened just today. Each wishes to marry in the US and then leave to immigrate later. Please don't go play your games in their threads. As evidenced by the three new threads today, this is an extremely common occurrence and the same advice is given each time.

[morocco4ever 63]

No, it won't raise eyebrows, at least not for any longer than it takes to see the foreigner left the USA in time, without attempting to adjust status.

Do you have something factual from the DOS that will back up that statement, or is this purely your opinion?

[pushbrk 13,118]

No, it won't raise eyebrows, at least not for any longer than it takes to see the foreigner left the USA in time, without attempting to adjust status.

Do you have something factual from the DOS that will back up that statement, or is this purely your opinion?

Sure, have fun.

http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/c22793.htm

[*julez* 124]

No, it won't raise eyebrows, at least not for any longer than it takes to see the foreigner left the USA in time, without attempting to adjust status.

Do you have something factual from the DOS that will back up that statement, or is this purely your opinion?

You question whether this is opinion, and yet your opinion has been the whole basis for your argument. Crazy.

[morocco4ever 63]

It seems that there is nothing but opinions and advice, but I don't see anything factual.

Therefore I suggest that the OP call the POE and tell them of their plans, then ask if it would be okay if they don't offer the fact that they are coming to get married. Then they can get their advise from the horses mouth rather than all of us on the other end of the horse.

No, it won't raise eyebrows, at least not for any longer than it takes to see the foreigner left the USA in time, without attempting to adjust status.

Do you have something factual from the DOS that will back up that statement, or is this purely your opinion?

You question whether this is opinion, and yet your opinion has been the whole basis for your argument. Crazy.

At least I admit mine is my opinion. So if they state it won't raise eyebrows, rather than they state it is in my opinion that it won't raise eyebrows, then yes I want to see facts. Why is that so crazy?

[pushbrk 13,118]

It seems that there is nothing but opinions and advice, but I don't see anything factual.

Therefore I suggest that the OP call the POE and tell them of their plans, then ask if it would be okay if they don't offer the fact that they are coming to get married. Then they can get their advise from the horses mouth rather than all of us on the other end of the horse.

No, it won't raise eyebrows, at least not for any longer than it takes to see the foreigner left the USA in time, without attempting to adjust status.

Do you have something factual from the DOS that will back up that statement, or is this purely your opinion?

You question whether this is opinion, and yet your opinion has been the whole basis for your argument. Crazy.

At least I admit mine is my opinion. So if they state it won't raise eyebrows, rather than they state it is in my opinion that it won't raise eyebrows, then yes I want to see facts. Why is that so crazy?

My statement was not merely an opinion. You now have the link to the FAM. Read to your heart's content. You're the one challenging the assertions. Find a referene that backs your challenge, if you wish.

[morocco4ever 63]

No, it won't raise eyebrows, at least not for any longer than it takes to see the foreigner left the USA in time, without attempting to adjust status.

Do you have something factual from the DOS that will back up that statement, or is this purely your opinion?

Sure, have fun.

http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/c22793.htm

I imagine that you can find it, since you stated it. And like I said, I never said it was illegal. Why do you keep suggesting I said that? I just merely pointed out possible consequences.

Edited February 2, 2009 by morocco4ever

[mox 298]

At least I admit mine is my opinion. So if they state it won't raise eyebrows, rather than they state it is in my opinion that it won't raise eyebrows, then yes I want to see facts. Why is that so crazy?

Your opinion is backed by nothing but your own conjecture. The opposing "opinion" is backed by numerous examples and (this one is sort of important) the rule of law. One of the examples was documented in this thread, which you ignored.

Once again...can you find ANY examples on VJ where not admitting intent to marry and adhere to the terms of the visa caused problems down the road? Any examples at all?

There is opinion, and then there is misinformation. Yours is the latter. Please stop.

[morocco4ever 63]

At least I admit mine is my opinion. So if they state it won't raise eyebrows, rather than they state it is in my opinion that it won't raise eyebrows, then yes I want to see facts. Why is that so crazy?

Your opinion is backed by nothing but your own conjecture. The opposing "opinion" is backed by numerous examples and (this one is sort of important) the rule of law. One of the examples was documented in this thread, which you ignored.

Once again...can you find ANY examples on VJ where not admitting intent to marry and adhere to the terms of the visa caused problems down the road? Any examples at all?

There is opinion, and then there is misinformation. Yours is the latter. Please stop.

Okay, done. But just because it is legal doesn't mean that won't create problems. For instance, it isn't illegal to marry someone with an age difference, as long as they are within the age of consent. But does that mean that it will not create a denial? It shouldn't, it isn't illegal.

I'm out of here. So all rejoice and perhaps they can pin a topic on how to beat the immigration system here on VJ.

[TBoneTX 46,129]

From 9 FAM 41.62 Notes, p. 9 of 13 (bolded for emphasis):

9 FAM 41.81 N11 ALTERNATIVE CLASSIFICATION (CT:VISA-756; 07-27-2005)

The inclusion of INA 101(a)(15)(K) in the nonimmigrant classifications is not intended to prohibit an alien fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen from applying for and obtaining an immigrant visa (IV) or a nonimmigrant visa (NIV) under another classification, if the alien can qualify for an alternative classification. For example, an alien proceeding to the United States to marry a U.S. citizen may be classified B-2, if it is established that following the marriage the alien will depart from the United States. (See 9 FAM 41.31 N11.1.)

[Krikit 1,165]

From 9 FAM 41.62 Notes, p. 9 of 13 (bolded for emphasis):

9 FAM 41.81 N11 ALTERNATIVE CLASSIFICATION (CT:VISA-756; 07-27-2005)

The inclusion of INA 101(a)(15)(K) in the nonimmigrant classifications is not intended to prohibit an alien fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen from applying for and obtaining an immigrant visa (IV) or a nonimmigrant visa (NIV) under another classification, if the alien can qualify for an alternative classification. For example, an alien proceeding to the United States to marry a U.S. citizen may be classified B-2, if it is established that following the marriage the alien will depart from the United States. (See 9 FAM 41.31 N11.1.)

Thank you, flipping thank you. Goodness gracious.

[TBoneTX 46,129]

Thank you, flipping thank you. Goodness gracious.

You forgot "Si, man!"

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Do I need to re-post my reply again? Seriously people. I did it. It worked and it never came back to bite us on the #######. I know other UK DCF people who did exactly the same thing and they had no problem. My childhood best friend (not on VJ) did the same thing with her French husband -- they got married in CT, went back to Paris and lived there for three years and then returned.

We have had black letter law quoted here. We have had experience from a filer from the OP's own country doing the same exact thing. Clearly these pale into insignificance in the face of your opinion. When the OP does go to the interview, they may be asked where they were married but come on. We are dealing with London here and they are not exactly known for the third degree. My husband was asked three questions -- where did you meet, where will you live, what will you do for work? When we were handing our paperwork over they did remark that we were married in Vermont, but that was to the effect of "Oooooh, Vermont in December? Was it really cold?"

I don't know where all this animosity is coming from. Is it some anger at the very fact that DCF exists and some of us are lucky enough to be able to be together through the whole process? I'm sorry if that's the case, but sometimes you find love while you're living in another country. My husband and I were living together for a year before we got married, and we only got married because we wanted to keep living together but doing so in the US, not the UK. I wanted to have my friends and family at the reception, so getting married in the US was the only option and, most importantly, it was a perfectly legal option. We knew we couldn't stay in the US and adjust, so we went back to the UK and filed. 5 months later we were done.

I try not to get involved in many VJ debates, and I try not to offer advice when it's something I'm not sure about or upon which I can merely conjecture, preferring to share when I can offer my own experience. This is my story: we did it. Finis.