Very Frustrated and annoyed at my friend who cheated

[JimVaPhuong 4,864]

There's no debate, really. USCIS has made it clear that the purpose of the K1 is to marry in the US - full stop.

Page 2...

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A2eng.pdf

The cited article is not legislative or authoritative, and was written by a bureaucrat, not a lawmaker. Your source is a FAQ, not law. There are 2 lawful requirements for a K1 Visa: that you have met the person within the past year, and that you are free to marry at the time of filing.

"Personal belief" only comes into play when someone wants to believe that the K1 is something that it is not.

My point exactly.

FFS, are you kidding me? A document from the government agency that adjudicates K1 petitions is not adequate because it's not the law??

Fine, here's the law; Immigration and Nationalization Act, section 101(15)(K):

(K) 3bb/ subject to subsections (d) and (p) of section 214, an alien who--

(i) is the fiancee or fiance of a citizen of the United States 3bb/ (other than a citizen described in section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) ) and who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety days after admission;

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?...ceca097f0ca1ba3

Enjoy!

[Chica Yeyé 41]

And that you supply them with a letter stating your intent to marry and adjust status. Twice. From each of you. I guess they just want to be sure in case someone was just coming here to test the waters.

A minor niggle, and I could be wrong, but I don't remember anywhere in the I-129F packet that states intent to adjust status.

And while you DO supply them with a letter stating intent to marry, the actual visa issued requires that you must either marry or leave within 90 days. To my knowledge, the letter stating intent to marry is not legally binding. (as opposed to, for example, the Affidavite of Support.)

Yes, the K1 visa is a marriage visa, and nothing about it says that the 90 days is a try-before-you-buy period. My point is really that people should do what they want to do, as long as they're not violating the law. Using 89 days to be sure and then either going home or marrying on the 90th day is not a violation of the law, and in fact might even prevent some marriages from happening that would have otherwise been a disaster.

The real point here is that people really shouldn't work themselves up so much about intent. Who cares if a couple uses the 90 days to test the waters, or if they get married at the arrival gate? So long as the marriage either happens or he/she leaves the country within 90 days then there is no harm or foul. Anything else is just people who have no business messing with your life, messing with your life.

Wise words brother mox. Now stfu and gimme some pie.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

where the FFF is my pie?!?!?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

God, how I just love VJ p*ssing matches. As you were. And mox, know your place and get all the ladies some freakin' pie, stat.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

God, how I just love VJ p*ssing matches. As you were. And mox, know your place and get all the ladies some freakin' pie, stat.

I tell you hermana... no respect!!!

[Bobby+Umit 161]

[JimVaPhuong 4,864]

Fine, here's the law; Immigration and Nationalization Act, section 101(15)(K):

(K) 3bb/ subject to subsections (d) and (p) of section 214, an alien who--

(i) is the fiancee or fiance of a citizen of the United States 3bb/ (other than a citizen described in section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) ) and who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within ninety days after admission;

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?...ceca097f0ca1ba3

Enjoy!

So...where's the smoking gun? Yes, a K1 visa is for entering the US to conclude a valid marriage within ninety days. This implies that if there is no marriage within 90 days, the non-USC must leave the country.

That, frankly, IS the smoking gun. It's the definition of a K1 beneficiary. Anyone who doesn't fit that definition is not a K1 beneficiary. If they aren't applying for the visa solely to marry the petitioner, then they are something else; boyfriend, girlfriend, immigrant fraud, whatever - but not fiance(e).

So then why would you be so opposed to a couple testing the waters, as long as either a valid marriage is conducted within 90 days, or the non-USC leaves the country? What's the harm? Isn't it better for society in general to have two people married because they've taken some extra time to make sure, rather than a broken marriage that may impose hardship on all involved?

I think all couples should do a lot more than just test the waters. They should do everything they possibly can to make sure that the marriage is what they really want, and feel as confident as they possibly can that the marriage will work in the long run. Whether the marriage is the result of a K1, K3, IR1/CR1, or a marriage between two US citizens and/or legal residents - I believe they should make these determinations before proposing marriage. As far as the K1 is concerned, this means before filing the I-129F. If you're not sure, then don't file.

Frankly, I wouldn't give a d**n about people using the K1 as "trial run" for marriage if my K1 petition was approved in a few weeks, and the interview followed a few weeks later. However, it does bother me thinking that I might be waiting in line behind people who are just "testing the waters".

[Ban Hammer 14,469]

Holy smokes, you guys! Talk about the villagers grabbing their torches!

bbq noob. it's what's for breakfast!

[TwoTravelers 0]

hi folks..just found out that my friend cheated by not doing K-1, and instead married his fiancee/gf of 2 YEARS while she was here on a Tourist Visa, and now they are happily living together without ever having been caught!!!

He should have gone through K-1 and waited like the REST OF US......

My question is can I do anything to rat him out (I dont care about friendship anymore--we were never really that close anyway)....

It just boils my blood knowing his story and how he got away with it!!!

Actually I know someone that did it that way, getting married in the US on a tourist visa, and it wasn't good for them. The girl got sent back to her country until they filed the proper paperwork. She had to apply for a CR-1 visa I think, or whichever visa is for a couple that is already married. Thing is your "friend" can probably go about living with his now wife just fine, their problems will come when they want to leave the US for trips because I don't think she can get issued a green card without going through AOS. If I were you I wouldn't worry too much, it will catch up to them. What I don't understand is being so vengeful... what's the point? what a waste of time

[JimVaPhuong 4,864]

That, frankly, IS the smoking gun. It's the definition of a K1 beneficiary. Anyone who doesn't fit that definition is not a K1 beneficiary. If they aren't applying for the visa solely to marry the petitioner, then they are something else; boyfriend, girlfriend, immigrant fraud, whatever - but not fiance(e).

You're leaving part of this out: Solely to marry the petitioner within 90 days. It's not the marrying that's required, it's the marrying within 90 days that's required. If the K1 were written like you're trying to interpret it, then the K1 beneficiary would either have to marry or...go to jail I guess. Fortunately, the K1 beneficiary has an option: either marry or leave the country. They have 90 days to do either.

I paraphrased the law. I didn't interpret it. But you've inserted an "or" option that isn't stated at all. Where does it say "or leave"? How does someone who thinks "or leave" is an available option fit the definition of a K1 beneficiary? The answer - they don't. Yes, they can leave before they're out of status to avoid deportation and being banned, but considering this as an option is clearly NOT the intent of the K1, and stating that they won't go to jail for doing it doesn't change the intent of the law. That's not just my opinion. USCIS has the same position, and the law backs them up.

On top of this, the law says "solely to conclude a valid marriage", which doesn't leave any leeway for adding any "or" options that someone feels are valid just because they aren't illegal. The law clearly states one intent, and only one intent, and that is to marry within 90 days.

I think all couples should do a lot more than just test the waters. They should do everything they possibly can to make sure that the marriage is what they really want, and feel as confident as they possibly can that the marriage will work in the long run. Whether the marriage is the result of a K1, K3, IR1/CR1, or a marriage between two US citizens and/or legal residents - I believe they should make these determinations before proposing marriage. As far as the K1 is concerned, this means before filing the I-129F. If you're not sure, then don't file.

Frankly, I wouldn't give a d**n about people using the K1 as "trial run" for marriage if my K1 petition was approved in a few weeks, and the interview followed a few weeks later. However, it does bother me thinking that I might be waiting in line behind people who are just "testing the waters".

Everything I bolded is your opinion. You believe people shouldn't use the 90 days to "test the waters," because that's how you believe it should work. But in reality, there's nothing about wanting to take 90 days to be absolutely sure that you're doing the right thing that violates the K1. You can enter the country with the intent to marry and still enter the country with the intent to make sure this is what you want to do for the rest of your life. The two are not mutually exclusive, and does not violate either the intent or the law behind the visa.

My "opinion" is based on reading the instructions from USCIS, and reading the relevant laws. Everything you've stated is also your opinion, but it's not backed up by either USCIS or the law.

Yes, I BELIEVE the K1 should not be used to "test the waters". USCIS apparently agrees, and the law backs up both of our opinions.

If it helps you to feel better about the process, I doubt the people who are filing to "test the waters" represent more than a fraction of filings. Just seems to me like it's a hell of a lot of time, trouble, and emotional roller-coastering to go through in order to just give it a test drive.

It's hard to know for certain what the percentage is. Neither USCIS nor the consulates ask this question on any of their forms. If they did, it's virtually guaranteed that everyone who ticked "I'm going to the US to 'test the waters'" would NOT get a visa.

However, judging from the number of people on this forum who've stated that they believe this is the reason for the 90 day period provided with the K1, I'd guess the numbers are not insignificant.

I agree that it's an awful lot of trouble to go through in order to "test drive" a relationship, which makes it even more surprising that so many seem to believe that's what the K1 was intended for.

[NArocks 13]

You should not attack in such a manner. He has a right to his thoughts no matter how warped you and I think they are

Edited June 24, 2009 by NArocks

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Personal insults are a violation of TOS. The offending post has been removed.

[NArocks 13]

Thanks Kathryn

[Chica Yeyé 41]

mox, seriously..... where the %!$^!^ is my pie, darnit!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Lol the " You suck as a human being" wasn't really meant as an insult....its sort of a catch phrase i often use jokingly...get a life