Very Frustrated and annoyed at my friend who cheated

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

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

[mox 298]

Okay Jim, I'm going to just agree to disagree. But for argument's sake, even if you are correct (which I don't concede at all) that it's actually illegal to use the 90 days (or presumably an portion thereof) to make sure this is really what a couple wants to do with the rest of their life...who cares? Is it really that much skin off your back? If this really were a crime, it would be a crime akin to jay-walking with no traffic in sight. It's harmless.

You're very early in this process, so I can understand that you might be frustrated at the wait that lies ahead of you, especially going through the consulate you're going through. But let me tell you: once the wait is over, you're going to look back and it won't seem so bad. I guarantee it. (and this is coming from somebody who had a pretty damn complicated and lengthy filing experience) It's frustrating to the point of tears while you're going through it, but once you're together it's going to seem insignificant. So...given that, who cares how a couple treats their 90 days? We live in a country that prides itself on tolerating just about anything, so long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. So why would you begrudge somebody who wants to do things just a little different than you would do it, just because it's supposedly the law handed down from almighty Congress? It doesn't hurt you, it doesn't cost you anything more, and in the end it's probably going to make two people either extremely happy or help them understand that it just wasn't meant to be. What can possibly be wrong with that?

Edited June 24, 2009 by mox

[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

[mox 298]

Sorry Len...

I eated it.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

you owe me Sir... yes u do.

[deidre 13]

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!!!

VG1 - you too could have done the same thing instead of waiting.... Dont hate the player, hate the game :-) cheer up. Plus, now that he is legally married, there is no way to "rat him out". Plus, what kind of friend are you to tell on him? Just be concerned about yourself darling. Thats all you need to worry about.

[mox 298]

you owe me Sir... yes u do.

Just put it on my tab.

[NArocks 13]

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

I have a life thank you very much and I am verry happy in it

However you meant it and placed it here again is still uncalled for

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Okay Jim, I'm going to just agree to disagree. But for argument's sake, even if you are correct (which I don't concede at all) that it's actually illegal to use the 90 days (or presumably an portion thereof) to make sure this is really what a couple wants to do with the rest of their life...who cares? Is it really that much skin off your back? If this really were a crime, it would be a crime akin to jay-walking with no traffic in sight. It's harmless.

Nah, I'm not saying it's illegal. They'd have to read your mind in order to enforce it. I just don't want people to have the impression that the K1 is a "taster's slice" of marriage (to use the pie analogy ). When people say "sure, you can use the K1 like that" I have to respond "yes, you can but you're not supposed to".

And you are correct that I'm very early in the process, but I've spent a considerable amount of time studying the process and learning about it (and I've been schooled a few times on this forum myself), and that education started months before I felt confident enough to file my own petition. Much of what I've learned has been the result of researching questions of other people, but the knowledge has helped me as well.

Anyway, moving on...

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Meh, think what you want. I realize tone doesn't come across in text. I tell my wife she sucks as a human being all the time. I tell my cat the same thing...somehow she doesn't really care. Maybe because she's a cat and naturally sucks as a human being no question about it.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

okay seriously your censoring "you suck as a human being" ??