My I-94 was marked 'To marry only'

[daboyz 36]

If I am right, fiancé (e) K 1 visa is also known as marriage Visa but it is strange that they stamp I-94 card like this.

K-1 visa do not required to marry your fiancé (e) in US. K-1 visa gives permission to marry within 90 days as per rule. If person decide not to marry the only option is they must leave the US before the Visa expires. The K1 non-immigrant status can be neither extend nor change.

I think it would be pretty difficult to get married anywhere but the U.S. K-1 is a single entry visa. If they leave the country to get married, how do you propose the foreign spouse would get back into the U.S.?

Please do not misinterpret, “THEY” means here is only fiancé (e), i.e. K-1 visa holder.

You must know something I don't. I was always under the impression that both parties must be present in order for the marriage to take place.

Once again. I'll say this so you can understand it. K-1 IS A SINGLE ENTRY VISA. Is that clear now?

[pushbrk 12,605]

Well it certainly raises an interesting question: Has anyone ever come into the US on a K-1 visa, but then married someone else, and successfully adjusted status? Stranger things have happened!

The K-1 is a type of immigrant visa, meaning the visa holder has been approved entry into the US. Does it really matter who they marry?

A K-1 is a non-immigrant visa, albeit a weird one because the holder is not expected to leave (assuming they play by the rules, of course).

You can only marry the person who petitioned for you. I should imagine that if any other person was named on the AOS documentation, the package wouldn't even be accepted. It would definitely be denied if they did accept it for processing and the K-1 would be accruing illegal presence if they then stayed beyond the 90-days.

I think it was just the CBP officer being a bit of a jobsworth, to be honest. He also did other weird stuff, like stapling the I-94 directly through the middle of it and my visa, saying "I make no apologies for attaching it like this".

Semantics become critical here. A K1 visa holder can marry anybody they want instead of the petitioner but only marriage to the petitioner gives them the privilege of adjusting status based on marriage to a US Citizen. If they marry somebody else instead, they don't get to stay.

I think you got a CBP officer who understood the K1. Some officers are very inexperienced with them.

And really - not trying to start a fight - but I'm not sure semantics are involved at all. The purpose of the K1 visa is to allow an alien entry to the US to marry the petitioner. That is the reason for the grant of the visa and the reason CBP is permitted to admit the alien.

To clarify, my reference to semantics was simply to correct the misstatement in bold above, not the CBP officer's actions.

[JeremyR 8]

I VJ...

Only on VJ can you ask a simple question and have it turn into a two-page thread about the very, very, very minute points of visa law Yes, of course you can theoretically marry anybody* you like but I'm pretty sure the slightly lax definition I gave above didn't cause anyone to think otherwise

* By 'anybody', I of course actually mean any human being, over the age of marital consent, not presently in wedlock, not clinically insane or otherwise under the guardianship of the court or another person, notwithstanding the consent of said guardian and finally, the assumption that nobody is going to burst into the church and yell "I object!". Did I cover everything?

This post brought to you by a hefty dose of sarcasm and good humour that may not accurately be reflected by the use of a mere three smilies.

[daboyz 36]

I VJ...

Only on VJ can you ask a simple question and have it turn into a two-page thread about the very, very, very minute points of visa law Yes, of course you can theoretically marry anybody* you like but I'm pretty sure the slightly lax definition I gave above didn't cause anyone to think otherwise

* By 'anybody', I of course actually mean any human being, over the age of marital consent, not presently in wedlock, not clinically insane or otherwise under the guardianship of the court or another person, notwithstanding the consent of said guardian and finally, the assumption that nobody is going to burst into the church and yell "I object!". Did I cover everything?

This post brought to you by a hefty dose of sarcasm and good humour that may not accurately be reflected by the use of a mere three smilies.

JeremyR I think you need to fix the first 2 dates in your signature. They say 09. Not sure though.

[rebeccajo 14]

Well it certainly raises an interesting question: Has anyone ever come into the US on a K-1 visa, but then married someone else, and successfully adjusted status? Stranger things have happened!

The K-1 is a type of immigrant visa, meaning the visa holder has been approved entry into the US. Does it really matter who they marry?

A K-1 is a non-immigrant visa, albeit a weird one because the holder is not expected to leave (assuming they play by the rules, of course).

You can only marry the person who petitioned for you. I should imagine that if any other person was named on the AOS documentation, the package wouldn't even be accepted. It would definitely be denied if they did accept it for processing and the K-1 would be accruing illegal presence if they then stayed beyond the 90-days.

I think it was just the CBP officer being a bit of a jobsworth, to be honest. He also did other weird stuff, like stapling the I-94 directly through the middle of it and my visa, saying "I make no apologies for attaching it like this".

Semantics become critical here. A K1 visa holder can marry anybody they want instead of the petitioner but only marriage to the petitioner gives them the privilege of adjusting status based on marriage to a US Citizen. If they marry somebody else instead, they don't get to stay.

I think you got a CBP officer who understood the K1. Some officers are very inexperienced with them.

And really - not trying to start a fight - but I'm not sure semantics are involved at all. The purpose of the K1 visa is to allow an alien entry to the US to marry the petitioner. That is the reason for the grant of the visa and the reason CBP is permitted to admit the alien.

To clarify, my reference to semantics was simply to correct the misstatement in bold above, not the CBP officer's actions.

Erm......I'm not sure I really want to do this, but here goes.....

Maybe I should clarify. I'm thinking that since the purpose of the visa is to marry a designated person, if the alien chooses to marry someone else (which, semantically they can because - well we are human and basically can do whatever we decide) - then that alien could possibly be considered illegally present (because they violated the terms of their visa).

That's all I'm saying. Not saying you were wrong - just that (as often is the case) there is a fine line.

[pushbrk 12,605]

Well it certainly raises an interesting question: Has anyone ever come into the US on a K-1 visa, but then married someone else, and successfully adjusted status? Stranger things have happened!

The K-1 is a type of immigrant visa, meaning the visa holder has been approved entry into the US. Does it really matter who they marry?

A K-1 is a non-immigrant visa, albeit a weird one because the holder is not expected to leave (assuming they play by the rules, of course).

You can only marry the person who petitioned for you. I should imagine that if any other person was named on the AOS documentation, the package wouldn't even be accepted. It would definitely be denied if they did accept it for processing and the K-1 would be accruing illegal presence if they then stayed beyond the 90-days.

I think it was just the CBP officer being a bit of a jobsworth, to be honest. He also did other weird stuff, like stapling the I-94 directly through the middle of it and my visa, saying "I make no apologies for attaching it like this".

Semantics become critical here. A K1 visa holder can marry anybody they want instead of the petitioner but only marriage to the petitioner gives them the privilege of adjusting status based on marriage to a US Citizen. If they marry somebody else instead, they don't get to stay.

I think you got a CBP officer who understood the K1. Some officers are very inexperienced with them.

And really - not trying to start a fight - but I'm not sure semantics are involved at all. The purpose of the K1 visa is to allow an alien entry to the US to marry the petitioner. That is the reason for the grant of the visa and the reason CBP is permitted to admit the alien.

To clarify, my reference to semantics was simply to correct the misstatement in bold above, not the CBP officer's actions.

Erm......I'm not sure I really want to do this, but here goes.....

Maybe I should clarify. I'm thinking that since the purpose of the visa is to marry a designated person, if the alien chooses to marry someone else (which, semantically they can because - well we are human and basically can do whatever we decide) - then that alien could possibly be considered illegally present (because they violated the terms of their visa).

That's all I'm saying. Not saying you were wrong - just that (as often is the case) there is a fine line.

Sure, it's a fine line. I'm drawing it at whether they leave before the 90 days is up. You're saying somebody might draw it at who they marry during the 90 days. Since I've seen cases where K1 holders married somebody else, left within the 90 days and came back on immigrant visas later, I'm sticking my origninal statement about the line. There may well be counter examples but I'm not yet aware of any.

I've seen people come here and use the K1 as a vacation visa too. I don't approve of it but if they leave on time, I've never seen them pay an immigration consequence for it.

[rebeccajo 14]

Well it certainly raises an interesting question: Has anyone ever come into the US on a K-1 visa, but then married someone else, and successfully adjusted status? Stranger things have happened!

The K-1 is a type of immigrant visa, meaning the visa holder has been approved entry into the US. Does it really matter who they marry?

A K-1 is a non-immigrant visa, albeit a weird one because the holder is not expected to leave (assuming they play by the rules, of course).

You can only marry the person who petitioned for you. I should imagine that if any other person was named on the AOS documentation, the package wouldn't even be accepted. It would definitely be denied if they did accept it for processing and the K-1 would be accruing illegal presence if they then stayed beyond the 90-days.

I think it was just the CBP officer being a bit of a jobsworth, to be honest. He also did other weird stuff, like stapling the I-94 directly through the middle of it and my visa, saying "I make no apologies for attaching it like this".

Semantics become critical here. A K1 visa holder can marry anybody they want instead of the petitioner but only marriage to the petitioner gives them the privilege of adjusting status based on marriage to a US Citizen. If they marry somebody else instead, they don't get to stay.

I think you got a CBP officer who understood the K1. Some officers are very inexperienced with them.

And really - not trying to start a fight - but I'm not sure semantics are involved at all. The purpose of the K1 visa is to allow an alien entry to the US to marry the petitioner. That is the reason for the grant of the visa and the reason CBP is permitted to admit the alien.

To clarify, my reference to semantics was simply to correct the misstatement in bold above, not the CBP officer's actions.

Erm......I'm not sure I really want to do this, but here goes.....

Maybe I should clarify. I'm thinking that since the purpose of the visa is to marry a designated person, if the alien chooses to marry someone else (which, semantically they can because - well we are human and basically can do whatever we decide) - then that alien could possibly be considered illegally present (because they violated the terms of their visa).

That's all I'm saying. Not saying you were wrong - just that (as often is the case) there is a fine line.

Sure, it's a fine line. I'm drawing it at whether they leave before the 90 days is up. You're saying somebody might draw it at who they marry during the 90 days. Since I've seen cases where K1 holders married somebody else, left within the 90 days and came back on immigrant visas later, I'm sticking my origninal statement about the line. There may well be counter examples but I'm not yet aware of any.

I've seen people come here and use the K1 as a vacation visa too. I don't approve of it but if they leave on time, I've never seen them pay an immigration consequence for it.

A counter example as in what? Someone being deported before the 90 days is up because of marrying another individual? That's not what I meant. I am saying that should an alien marry someone other than the petitioner and attempt to adjust, I wonder if the reason for the denial (in the law) is illegal presence. It may not be. It may simply be that it's codified it can't be done.

I guess I just don't think it's 'semantical' other than from a standpoint of freewill.

Otherwise, I think it's interesting what the officer did from the standpoint of how differently these individuals behave in their job duties, as we have cases where the officers are so ignorant of the rules they don't give I94's or collect consular packets. Kind of scary really when one considers the power they have within the law right up to the desk of an immigration judge.

[payxibka 10,045]

It may simply be that it's codified it can't be done.

Codified... same as a C-1 cannot adjust by rule...

[pushbrk 12,605]

Well it certainly raises an interesting question: Has anyone ever come into the US on a K-1 visa, but then married someone else, and successfully adjusted status? Stranger things have happened!

The K-1 is a type of immigrant visa, meaning the visa holder has been approved entry into the US. Does it really matter who they marry?

A K-1 is a non-immigrant visa, albeit a weird one because the holder is not expected to leave (assuming they play by the rules, of course).

You can only marry the person who petitioned for you. I should imagine that if any other person was named on the AOS documentation, the package wouldn't even be accepted. It would definitely be denied if they did accept it for processing and the K-1 would be accruing illegal presence if they then stayed beyond the 90-days.

I think it was just the CBP officer being a bit of a jobsworth, to be honest. He also did other weird stuff, like stapling the I-94 directly through the middle of it and my visa, saying "I make no apologies for attaching it like this".

Semantics become critical here. A K1 visa holder can marry anybody they want instead of the petitioner but only marriage to the petitioner gives them the privilege of adjusting status based on marriage to a US Citizen. If they marry somebody else instead, they don't get to stay.

I think you got a CBP officer who understood the K1. Some officers are very inexperienced with them.

And really - not trying to start a fight - but I'm not sure semantics are involved at all. The purpose of the K1 visa is to allow an alien entry to the US to marry the petitioner. That is the reason for the grant of the visa and the reason CBP is permitted to admit the alien.

To clarify, my reference to semantics was simply to correct the misstatement in bold above, not the CBP officer's actions.

Erm......I'm not sure I really want to do this, but here goes.....

Maybe I should clarify. I'm thinking that since the purpose of the visa is to marry a designated person, if the alien chooses to marry someone else (which, semantically they can because - well we are human and basically can do whatever we decide) - then that alien could possibly be considered illegally present (because they violated the terms of their visa).

That's all I'm saying. Not saying you were wrong - just that (as often is the case) there is a fine line.

Sure, it's a fine line. I'm drawing it at whether they leave before the 90 days is up. You're saying somebody might draw it at who they marry during the 90 days. Since I've seen cases where K1 holders married somebody else, left within the 90 days and came back on immigrant visas later, I'm sticking my origninal statement about the line. There may well be counter examples but I'm not yet aware of any.

I've seen people come here and use the K1 as a vacation visa too. I don't approve of it but if they leave on time, I've never seen them pay an immigration consequence for it.

A counter example as in what? Someone being deported before the 90 days is up because of marrying another individual? That's not what I meant. I am saying that should an alien marry someone other than the petitioner and attempt to adjust, I wonder if the reason for the denial (in the law) is illegal presence. It may not be. It may simply be that it's codified it can't be done.

I guess I just don't think it's 'semantical' other than from a standpoint of freewill.

Otherwise, I think it's interesting what the officer did from the standpoint of how differently these individuals behave in their job duties, as we have cases where the officers are so ignorant of the rules they don't give I94's or collect consular packets. Kind of scary really when one considers the power they have within the law right up to the desk of an immigration judge.

A counter example would be somebody arriving on a K1, marrying somebody besides the petitioner, leaving and then not being allowed to immigrate based on the fact they married somebody besides the petitioner, or any other immigration related consequence based on otherwise complying with the 90 day departure rule but marrying a different person.

I'm simply saying I've seen no evidence there's a consequence to "marrying" somebody else. It's clear they can't adjust status based on marriage to somebody other than the petitioner. I'm not going to argue about whether something is semantics or not. I'm just saying that the original statement to the effect, "The K1 holder cannot marry anybody but the petitioner while in the USA." is incorrect. What is correct, is that the K1 holder cannot adjust status based on marriage to anybody but the petitioner." I'm simply acknowledging some might think the difference in wording is "semantics" or nit-picking. Regardless of whether the difference is semantics, it's a difference with a distinction.

To be clear, I've made no comment at all on the CBP officer's notation. Now, I will. It's my opinion the CBP officer was putting the foreign national on notice that her future immigration privileges were based on marriage to the petitioner. His authority ceased and the visa itself died, once the OP left his station and entered the USA. As you've so aptly stated, CBP officers' actions vary widely from excellent and thorough to completely incompetent. This particular statement, IMO is harmless and probably immaterial.

[rebeccajo 14]

To be clear, I've made no comment at all on the CBP officer's notation. Now, I will. It's my opinion the CBP officer was putting the foreign national on notice that her future immigration privileges were based on marriage to the petitioner. His authority ceased and the visa itself died, once the OP left his station and entered the USA. As you've so aptly stated, CBP officers' actions vary widely from excellent and thorough to completely incompetent. This particular statement, IMO is harmless and probably immaterial.

What happens at the officer's station, though, can be powerful and life-altering for the entrant.

The observations and notes of a CBP officer are considered (in courts of law) to be unrefutable. Testimony of an officer as to what occurred at the border is virtually impossible for an alien to refute.

It's true their authority ceases once they've let someone through. This particular officer apparently wanted it to be clear he had advised the alien WHY he had admitted her, and that she couldn't adjust her status without following his admonissions. He may have been 'jobsmithing' but - I kind of like it. When Wes and I crossed the border together I was advised to "remember to adjust his status". This process can be so overwhelming for some - I think it's good that some of the 'officials' we meet along the way try to help us along.

[TBoneTX 44,787]

As you've so aptly stated, CBP officers' actions vary widely from excellent and thorough to completely incompetent.

Si, man. Over Easter weekend, the wife & I traveled to the border and visited Nuevo Progreso, Mexico on the Saturday. We had the two hitherto-unused I-512L forms (Advance Parole). Coming back in, that evening, we were (as expected) directed to secondary inspection -- a large room with many seats, empty except for us -- and we waited 40 minutes while the CBP officer fumbled through the processing of the form. He had to caucus frequently with other agents who walked by, and they all huddled over the computer, squinting at it. It was frequently comical: "Do we give one of these back to her, or what?" "Why is this stuck? Oh -- forgot to type 'Guayaquil' under 'consulate.'" "Do we run her prints through AFIS now or later?" "Where's the 'multiple entry' stamp? Have you seen it?" "It WAS on Garcia's desk, but it's not there now." "Do we need permission from the boss to scratch out 'single entry' and write in 'multiple entry' by hand?"

The wife & I had to stifle chortles more than once. Nuevo Progreso is a very heavily traveled, well-staffed POE, and I had expected that CBP could process AP forms there with their eyes closed, si man. This was obviously this particular agent's first try at it. However, he did have the presence of mind to give us a form, stamped twice, to indicate that both of us were cleared. I tried to show this when we exited secondary inspection and went into the usual inspection line, but the agents there (who were aware of where we had been) waved us through: "You're both cleared."

Ironically, on MONDAY after returning home, we received the "welcome to America" letter, dated April 7 and obviously in the mail to us during our AP experience. The green card itself arrived 4 days later. At least we have a fresh, once-used, fully executed AP form, suitable for framing, si man.

Footnote: The wife asked me more than once what I would do if she were disallowed re-entry to the U.S. I said, "Leave you here and try to find myself a rubia (a blonde)!" She smacked me, si man.

Edited April 20, 2009 by TBoneTX

[Carlawarla 1]

I've pondered what this meant a couple of times over the past year. For some reason it didn't occur to me to ask if anyone here knew

When I came in on a K-1 through Chicago last May, the CBP guard annotated the "Record of Changes" section of my I-94 with "TO MARRY ONLY: <full name>". I've never heard of this before and wondered at the time what on earth the point of writing it was. Does anyone else have that on their I-94 or know why it's sometimes written?

This wasn't on my I-94, but on my actual K-1 Visa, at the bottom of the visa, a computerized statement that this was a single entry visa to marry: and then it said my now husband's full name.