K1 process and divorce/marriage laws in wisconsin

[undeadmike 0]

My whole idea was only that a marriage license is a better proof that you are "free to marry" in the state you want to do that. A divorce decree would only prove the end of a previous marriage, nothing more. A marriage license issued right before filing would actually prove you have no other marriages at that point (unless you guys/gals over there can get a license even though you are married).

But diadromous mermaid is right, both have to be present to get such a license (at least usually), so it's not an option.

Plus, it was only a sarcastic outlook on the whole thing, not a serious offer to USCIS to change their ways or to adopt the license in addition to the decree. Although, speaking of redundancy... since all the things the USCIS wants of you to prove you want to come over and marry just screams redundancy. For example, you basically file the affidavit of support twice during the whole process... yes, one is K1, one is AOS, but it's all part of the same thing. The idea of a nonimmigration visa to be used to immigrate and the resulting procedures are not the most efficient ones.

[john_and_marlene 162]

My whole idea was only that a marriage license is a better proof that you are "free to marry" in the state you want to do that. A divorce decree would only prove the end of a previous marriage, nothing more. A marriage license issued right before filing would actually prove you have no other marriages at that point (unless you guys/gals over there can get a license even though you are married).

But diadromous mermaid is right, both have to be present to get such a license (at least usually), so it's not an option.

Plus, it was only a sarcastic outlook on the whole thing, not a serious offer to USCIS to change their ways or to adopt the license in addition to the decree. Although, speaking of redundancy... since all the things the USCIS wants of you to prove you want to come over and marry just screams redundancy. For example, you basically file the affidavit of support twice during the whole process... yes, one is K1, one is AOS, but it's all part of the same thing. The idea of a nonimmigration visa to be used to immigrate and the resulting procedures are not the most efficient ones.

getting a license doesn't prove anything either ... bigamists do it all the time.

[eclowjpd 0]

You are all over the place and rehashing the same thing. I don't see what waiting to marry in Wis. has to do with being free to marry. And why do you care, when it will take you 6 months or more to get the visa??

My whole idea was only that a marriage license is a better proof that you are "free to marry" in the state you want to do that. A divorce decree would only prove the end of a previous marriage, nothing more. A marriage license issued right before filing would actually prove you have no other marriages at that point (unless you guys/gals over there can get a license even though you are married).

But diadromous mermaid is right, both have to be present to get such a license (at least usually), so it's not an option.

Plus, it was only a sarcastic outlook on the whole thing, not a serious offer to USCIS to change their ways or to adopt the license in addition to the decree. Although, speaking of redundancy... since all the things the USCIS wants of you to prove you want to come over and marry just screams redundancy. For example, you basically file the affidavit of support twice during the whole process... yes, one is K1, one is AOS, but it's all part of the same thing. The idea of a nonimmigration visa to be used to immigrate and the resulting procedures are not the most efficient ones.

The very first post after your question, from Kritit, answers your concern!

Once the divorce is final she is free to marry and submit the K1 application. The process will take you beyond the six month wait in WI anyway. Good luck.

[undeadmike 0]

You are all over the place and rehashing the same thing.

Yep, hehe, 'cause everybody has a different opinion...

Anyway, my girlfriend talked to a immigration lawyer in WI today. She (the lawyer) said the waiting period is no reason to postpone filing the petition. The divorce decree proves she is free to marry. Okay (*shrug*), so that's the second lawyer stating that so I guess it really doesnt matter.

BUT: Now for the catch... she said we still should wait and not file right away. Because if we file right after my girlfriend gets divorced, it will look fishy and they might suspect fraud. Which, of course, will result in delays and RFE's and all the ####### we love so much.

Bottom line: If we can wait, we should. If not, the waiting period isn't an issue but it could get tricky because the timespan between the divorce and the filing might look weird.

So I guess we do wait... *sigh* We agreed its safer and it's always better to be on the safe side.

[rebeccajo 14]

Divorce lawyers are divorce lawyers.

Immigration lawyers are immigration lawyers.

Just like obstetricians deliver babies and podiatrists cut your toenails.

Your wife's lawyers gets a C- in my book for spouting gospel on an area of the law in which he has no expertise. And if you clearly cannot marry in the state of Wisconsin if you have divorced in the last 6 months - well there ya go. Do you know what they call the guy who graduates at the bottom of his class in law school? They call him a lawyer.......

I think your g/f's concern about filing soon after the divorce because it looks 'fishy' is a good point, but debateable. You are not immigrating from what is known as a 'high fraud' country - like my husband immigrating from the UK was not a 'high risk' beneficiary. We filed immediately after my divorce and it did not affect us. Were she filing for a beneficiary from - say VietNam - I would say she is definately correct.

But I DO think that with all the apples thrown into one pie, you are better off waiting.

Edited June 22, 2006 by rebeccajo

[undeadmike 0]

Well, like you said, we are all not lawyers. I only know that she had cases like that, filed and they went through. She practises in WI so she is familiar with those marriage laws.*shrug* So I go with the guys that actually are the lawyers in this case, especially since it's not only one that has the same opinion. That's the reason why I was asking so much - if only one would have said that, it would still be a lot more skeptical, but we have asked two now, one came up in this forum. I am still awaiting two other opinions from two other lawyers in this case. Let's see what they come up with...

I guess the working patterns and regulations how to interpret the law of the USCIS are different from the our interpretation of the law (The USCIS would not be the first office to interpret laws in "their" way).

My theory is... since the people at USCIS are even less family lawyers than the ones we ask, they probably really don't know. *shrug again* Could be they just see the divorce decree and assume what it states: the marriage is terminated. I don't exactly know what kind of internal regulations exist for them, but a waiting period might not be in those regulations. Discussing that is moot at this point since it apparantly is as it is.

You are right with the apples and the pie... and that's why we wait.

[eclowjpd 0]

Ugh! I told you so!

And there is no reason to wait. Get the divorce and file the 129f!

Well, like you said, we are all not lawyers. I only know that she had cases like that, filed and they went through. She practises in WI so she is familiar with those marriage laws.*shrug* So I go with the guys that actually are the lawyers in this case, especially since it's not only one that has the same opinion. That's the reason why I was asking so much - if only one would have said that, it would still be a lot more skeptical, but we have asked two now, one came up in this forum. I am still awaiting two other opinions from two other lawyers in this case. Let's see what they come up with...

I guess the working patterns and regulations how to interpret the law of the USCIS are different from the our interpretation of the law (The USCIS would not be the first office to interpret laws in "their" way).

My theory is... since the people at USCIS are even less family lawyers than the ones we ask, they probably really don't know. *shrug again* Could be they just see the divorce decree and assume what it states: the marriage is terminated. I don't exactly know what kind of internal regulations exist for them, but a waiting period might not be in those regulations. Discussing that is moot at this point since it apparantly is as it is.

You are right with the apples and the pie... and that's why we wait.

[rebeccajo 14]

For whatever its worth, Mike, I think it sux too...the waiting.

[desert_fox 32]

Well, like you said, we are all not lawyers. I only know that she had cases like that, filed and they went through. She practises in WI so she is familiar with those marriage laws.*shrug* So I go with the guys that actually are the lawyers in this case, especially since it's not only one that has the same opinion. That's the reason why I was asking so much - if only one would have said that, it would still be a lot more skeptical, but we have asked two now, one came up in this forum. I am still awaiting two other opinions from two other lawyers in this case. Let's see what they come up with...

I guess the working patterns and regulations how to interpret the law of the USCIS are different from the our interpretation of the law (The USCIS would not be the first office to interpret laws in "their" way).

My theory is... since the people at USCIS are even less family lawyers than the ones we ask, they probably really don't know. *shrug again* Could be they just see the divorce decree and assume what it states: the marriage is terminated. I don't exactly know what kind of internal regulations exist for them, but a waiting period might not be in those regulations. Discussing that is moot at this point since it apparantly is as it is.

You are right with the apples and the pie... and that's why we wait.

They aint lawyers, but they can get all the legal opinions that they need from their own staff or from the Attorney Generals office.