K1 might go away to combat marriage fraud.

[lucyrich 20]

Some of these suggestions do make a lot of sense; but I do not see USCIS taking away K-1.

Nor do I. Realize that it's not up to the USCIS nor the Department of State to take away the K-1. The only body with the authority to take it away is the body which granted it, the Congress of the United States. You've heard the phrase, "it would take an act of Congress". Well this is one of those cases.

It wouldn't surprise me greatly if there is some attempt at immigration reform within the next year, but I'm not holding my breath. I suspect it will happen either early in this presidential term or not at all until next term. Congress has no real motivation to do very much controversial legislation just before an election, and immigration reform, regardless of how big or small it would be or what it would contain, would be guaranteed to be controversial.

If there IS immigration reform soon, it's anybody's guess what it might contain. But I suspect fiancee visas are fairly low on the priority list of things to clean up.

That article linked in the first post is just one former consular officer's opinion. It's eye opening, and worth reading for lots of reasons. But just because one former employee of the government thinks a particular class of visa should be abolished doesn't mean his proposal has much chance of getting through Congress.

I believe the K-3 visa ought to be abolished, and the people who are currently working on processing K-3's should be reassigned to faster processing of IR-1/CR-1 visas. It's stupid to have a "shortcut visa" that ends up causing twice as much paperwork and requiring more scarce staff resources to process. But don't worry, my opinion doesn't count for anything, and just because I make that suggestion doesn't mean it has any chance of being enacted.

[WROCLAW 0]

Oh, and their recommendations don't mean jack, so I wouldn't get too worried that the K-1 visa is going to vanish.

I can put up a website and recommend free ice-cream for all, but it ain't gonna happen.

I agree.so true, it won't happen anytime soon.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Canada did away with the fiancee category in 2002. It would not surprise me if that happened in the US system. However, I do not believe it would be a priority. Immigration reform has oh! so many more pressing issues at hand than fiance visas.

[MrsCat 6]

Canada did away with the fiancee category in 2002. It would not surprise me if that happened in the US system. However, I do not believe it would be a priority. Immigration reform has oh! so many more pressing issues at hand than fiance visas.

Canada pursued the fiancee visa category because it was an easy political win, to say to the public - hey look, we are fixing our immigration problems. They essentially stopped there, and changed priorities away from fraud issues to temporary foreign worker visas.

[AaronM 0]

I came across this excellent article from the Center for Immigration Studies explaining the visa process from the side of the consular posts and USCIS. It is a lengthy article but worth reading to get an inside look at the process. Principally it is about marriage fraud. It appears that the consular post do not have the authority to deny a visa, all they can do is to send it back to USCIS for further review and it is not done often. So if your application made it to the embassy it is almost certain to be approved even if they think the application is a fraud.

http://cis.org/marriagefraud

I printed here the recommendations to tight down the process to combat visa fraud. One of them is to eliminate the K1 and force the petitioner to go marry his/her fiancee in his/her country.

Esoll.

Recommendations

Eliminate Fiancé (K-1) visas. There is simply too much fraud associated with this visa category. Americans who intend to marry foreign nationals are free to do so, but making the effort to get married abroad testifies to the legitimacy and seriousness of the relationship. Couples can always have a second ceremony or reception in the United States once the foreign spouse receives his or her immigrant visa.

Adjudicate marriage-based immigrant visa petitions in the foreign spouse’s country of residence, with the American sponsor present. Authorize consular officers (or overseas USCIS officers) to rule on the validity of the relationships and deny fraudulent petitions. Appeals could be heard by an officer’s supervisor — with both petitioner and applicant present.

Eliminate waivers of ineligibility for marriage-based green card applicants with criminal convictions, involvement in a criminal street gang, or long periods of illegal stay, unless the health or welfare of their citizen spouses or children would be severely affected. Not knowing a foreign language or having to find a new job overseas should not be grounds for waivers.

Create a national marriage registration database to help combat serial marriage fraud.

Create a third option for USCIS adjudicators when a couple is interviewed to remove the foreign spouse’s “conditional” status on his or her green card (typically after two years of marriage). Rather than just revocation or approval, conditional status could be extended for up to three years with a supervisor’s approval. Would-be cheaters would have no guaranty that they would only need to remain married for two years.

Deny all applications filed by couples that cannot hold a basic conversation with each other in a common language. Legitimate couples will learn to communicate with each other and can reapply at that time.

Eliminate the co-sponsor system for Americans filing immigrant visa petitions for spouses overseas. This means that Americans living below the poverty line would be unable to sponsor immigrants. Exceptions should be made for bona fide full-time students at the university level and young petitioners still listed as dependents on their parents’ most recent tax return. Since many, if not most of the Americans that engage in marriage fraud for cash are in a weak financial situation themselves, this move would add a difficult hurdle for would-be scam artists who want to engage in a sham marriage to a foreign national for money.

Eliminate the possibility of adjustment of status to anyone out of status or on a short-term visa.

Give both the State Department and USCIS significantly more resources to combat marriage fraud.

Require USCIS officers to seek the assistance of overseas consular officers when conducting investigations on suspect cases. Officers in-country often have language skills and local knowledge that can help expose sham marriages.

Give American spouses all immigration-related documents that the interviewing officer has access to, including previous tourist visa applications, case notes, criminal histories, etc. Americans should know if their foreign spouses have track records of immigration fraud.

Investigate claims of marriage fraud made by American citizens who only realize that their spouses were “in it for the green card” after they receive permanent residency. While not taking the Americans’ word at face value, USCIS must investigate these claims and deport those found guilty of fraud.

Deny visa petitions for foreign spouses who previously have been divorced from an applicant. This will eliminate the opportunity for a foreign national to divorce his or her spouse, enter into a fake marriage with an American citizen to gain legal status, and then divorce the American and re-marry and sponsor for immigration his or her original spouse.

Aggressively prosecute everyone involved in marriage fraud, from those involved in personal schemes to large-scale marriage fraud rings. Penalties should include jail time for those convicted

The United States can not tell someone who they can or can not marry , that is unconstitutional . And the same right are still implied in other countries , no government can tell a person how to live their own life , if the way they live is not hurting anyone . Does you marriage to another race , or other country hurt anyone ?. If not then there is nothing a government can do , if you both have a guinun relationship and prove it too the government .

[Caladan 19]

You can marry! There's no right to immigrate.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Canada did away with the fiancee category in 2002. It would not surprise me if that happened in the US system. However, I do not believe it would be a priority. Immigration reform has oh! so many more pressing issues at hand than fiance visas.

Canada pursued the fiancee visa category because it was an easy political win, to say to the public - hey look, we are fixing our immigration problems. They essentially stopped there, and changed priorities away from fraud issues to temporary foreign worker visas.

They also made it possible for same sex couples to immigrate through the same channels as heterosexual couples ; instead of using the previous "humanitarian reason" category. I quite liked the changes.

[MrsCat 6]

Canada did away with the fiancee category in 2002. It would not surprise me if that happened in the US system. However, I do not believe it would be a priority. Immigration reform has oh! so many more pressing issues at hand than fiance visas.

Canada pursued the fiancee visa category because it was an easy political win, to say to the public - hey look, we are fixing our immigration problems. They essentially stopped there, and changed priorities away from fraud issues to temporary foreign worker visas.

They also made it possible for same sex couples to immigrate through the same channels as heterosexual couples ; instead of using the previous "humanitarian reason" category. I quite liked the changes.

Excellent point. I forgot about that change. That was a good one. Because before it was just a slight of hand.

Edited March 24, 2009 by MrsCat

[Chica Yeyé 41]

see???? see????

[MrsCat 6]

see???? see????

You'll always be my Seattle Sistah.

[Cecile and Bryan 0]

So let's imagine that the USA gets rid of the K1 visa and all that is left is getting married in another country and then do K3/CR1. What if the other country does just the same, does it mean that people can't get married?

Like, a US citizen meets someone from country X that has the same law. They can't get married in the USA, but they can't get married in X either. That wouldn't be very clever.

Of course, it's all about immigration and apparently no visa is required to get married in the USA (as long as the foreign spouse doesn't have any intention to immigrate at that time and leaves after the wedding), but people at POEs don't seem to like it very much either, since they automatically assume that someone who says they are here to get married is intending to immigrate.

So what is there left? Enter the country saying "no i'm just here on vacation" when you actually want to get married, but if you say so they don't let you enter. Then get married, then leave, then apply. That's a little confusing.