questions about love and commitment relative to K1 process

[Neonred 3,569]

When we entered the country I clearly heard them say to her "you have 90 days to marry OR you must leave the country". They didn't say we absolutely had to get married. God knows there were a couple of days the first two months I was pretty sure we were NOT going to get married, but we made it through that, so in that sense it was a trial period. And let me say that I had spent a lot of time with my girl, not just one or two trips, more like 9 visits of two weeks or more each time.

Of course the intent is there as evidenced by the letter of intent and the fact one is filing for a fiancee visa, but once a couple start living together for the first time in this new country and new culture other forces come into play. No one really knows the outcome until they try.

[Rob_Lesya 4]

When we entered the country I clearly heard them say to her "you have 90 days to marry OR you must leave the country". They didn't say we absolutely had to get married. God knows there were a couple of days the first two months I was pretty sure we were NOT going to get married, but we made it through that, so in that sense it was a trial period. And let me say that I had spent a lot of time with my girl, not just one or two trips, more like 9 visits of two weeks or more each time.

Of course the intent is there as evidenced by the letter of intent and the fact one is filing for a fiancee visa, but once a couple start living together for the first time in this new country and new culture other forces come into play. No one really knows the outcome until they try.

Yes, everyone (including the USCIS) recognizes that things can change. Again, the instructions (and the law) doesn't say you MUST marry, you WILL marry, you WILL BE FORCED to marry, etc.... simply that you INTEND to marry. Lord knows, the first tme I got married I intended it to be forever. This time around, I INTEND that this will definitely be the LAST time I do this!!

The point is, anyone can (and should) do as you did ---- visit the person, spend time with the person, make sure of your feelings and the desire to be together, propose marriage to that person and make them your fiancee BEFORE you submit your I-129F petition and sign a statement declaring your intent to marry that person.

For those who don't have the patience to do that, the maturity to do that, or the finances to do that -- this simply is NOT the route for you!

[Rob_Lesya 4]

One other thing I want to say about this discussion----

None of this is personal against Mox. He gives very good advice on this forum-- most of the time! And I DO admire his dedication to his ideals and willingness to stick to his opinions-- even when he's blatently wrong.

And I think in this discussion Mox is imagining someone who DOES have relatively good intentions -- someone who simply isn't sure about whether this is the right person, etc, etc... and simply wants to take some time to find out.

Unfortunately, there ARE a lot of guys out there with intentions that are MUCH less than honorable! I remember a few years ago on the RW-L mailing list, there were a couple of guys who were married to Ukrainian women. These women left them, and so now the guys' attitude was "Well, I've now been f**ked by a Ukrainian girl so now I'm going to f**k as many Ukrainian girls as I can in return." They traveled to Ukraine 3-4 times a year on business. They would meet as many women as they could online, romance them, promise them the moon, make the girl think they've met their Prince Charming and found their future in America. Then when the guy was in Ukraine, he'd meet up with the girl and spend time with her until he got what he was after. Then he would completely disappear and move on to the next one. When he returned, he would post long, lurid details of his trip complete with his "scorecard."

Spend time on the WSGForum and you'll eventually come across someone suggesting to use the K-1 visa process in the same kind of manner. Generally, it's a guy who really can't afford to travel to Russia or Ukraine... but he figures he'll save up his money, make the trip once, try out a few girls, find a girl he likes, and bring her here on a K-1. He figures he'll have at least 90 days worth of fun, and there's SOOO many illegals here now --- if we keep moving, how long can she get away with being here illegally until she's forced to go back, and would they ever really FORCE her to go back, etc, etc.

I hope that most of us would agree that these are the types of guys whe DEFINITELY need to be kept away from this process at ALL costs!

[johnj 0]

I hope that most of us would agree that these are the types of guys whe DEFINITELY need to be kept away from this process at ALL costs!

Good points, agreed.

I have been on other forums a couple years ago that sort of kept scorecards; I thought it was cruel and discusting that anyone would lead someone on simply for the sake of self-satisfaction.

[Blues Fairy 0]

So you're arguing that it shouldn't be used as a trial period because it clogs up the system, which is not a legal argument. And certainly there's no evidence to support this claim either way (can you cite a percentage of filers who use the system in this manner?), and I could just as well argue that anyone who files clogs up the system, so maybe nobody should file, or maybe we should only limit filing from countries who have a higher likelihood of being approved. And of course all K1's are "potentially useless case[es] of paperwork" because the non-USC always has the option of returning to his or her country anyway.

As I said, the intention to use K-1 as a trial dramatically increases the chances of the fiance(e) returning to the home country. While it is within the law, such intentional abuse of K-1 visa prolongs the wait times for other filers whose intentions are more serious. You may demagogize as much as you like that everybody in effect clogs the system, but for those who understand the notion of personal responsibility, the idea I am promoting should be quite clear.

I am absolutely not surprised that you, IIRC having worked in a gov't institution, cannot accept the idea of making responsible choices while using a government program.

[mox 298]

The point is, anyone can (and should) do as you did ---- visit the person, spend time with the person, make sure of your feelings and the desire to be together, propose marriage to that person and make them your fiancee BEFORE you submit your I-129F petition and sign a statement declaring your intent to marry that person.

For those who don't have the patience to do that, the maturity to do that, or the finances to do that -- this simply is NOT the route for you!

Believe it or not, I agree 100%. But I would never want it codified into law. As long as they're not hurting anybody else (and until someone can show me with statistics that "testing the waters" folks bog down the system, I don't consider the "adding cases that will probably fail to the USCIS backlog" argument valid), people should be allowed maximum flexibility in their lives. People in this country "test the waters" by moving in together all the time before they marry. It's not for me, sounds like it's not for you, but for some people it works. More power to them.

One other thing I want to say about this discussion----

None of this is personal against Mox. He gives very good advice on this forum-- most of the time! And I DO admire his dedication to his ideals and willingness to stick to his opinions-- even when he's blatently wrong.

Stop trying to butter me up!

And I think in this discussion Mox is imagining someone who DOES have relatively good intentions -- someone who simply isn't sure about whether this is the right person, etc, etc... and simply wants to take some time to find out.

Hmm. I'm not really imagining anybody in particular. For example, I don't believe in gun ownership because I have an ideal in my head that gun owners will be responsible owners. I believe in gun ownership because I believe in the principle of the matter. There will be people who abuse the system, and people who are poster-children for how the system should work. I just believe everyone ought to be given the freedom to make their own mistakes, and as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, why the heck not?

I hope that most of us would agree that these are the types of guys whe DEFINITELY need to be kept away from this process at ALL costs!

No matter what kind of system you have in place, somebody will always abuse it. Which is why it's important for BOTH people to know what they're getting into. If the woman comes over believing it's true love and marriage forever, while the guy has it in his head that he's just testing the waters, then that's a tragedy. But there will always be these kinds of people, and no amount of legislation is going to completely shut it down.

As I said, the intention to use K-1 as a trial dramatically increases the chances of the fiance(e) returning to the home country. While it is within the law, such intentional abuse of K-1 visa prolongs the wait times for other filers whose intentions are more serious. You may demagogize as much as you like that everybody in effect clogs the system, but for those who understand the notion of personal responsibility, the idea I am promoting should be quite clear.

You might be right, but I've seen or read nothing that supports this conclusion. It's quite possible that using the K1 to "test the waters" dramatically increases the chance of the fiance(e) staying in the US. We just don't know. But more importantly, even if you're right, I don't see why any of us should care. They paid their money, they filed their papers, and they followed the law just like the rest of us. Whatever happens after that is nobody's business but the couple's.

Still, your recognition that a "testing the waters" approach isn't illegal sheds new light on my understanding of your argument. I thought you were arguing that it was illegal, but you seem to be arguing that it's morally repugnant. I don't quite agree with that either, but at least we agree on the major point of it not being illegal.

I am absolutely not surprised that you, IIRC having worked in a gov't institution, cannot accept the idea of making responsible choices while using a government program.

Actually, it might be because I've worked for the government that I feel this way. Government wants to be WAY too much up in your business and in your personal life. If it were up to me, the K1 would be a helluva lot more streamlined and the government would be collecting a helluva lot less of my personal information.

[baron555 934]

How is getting married on Day #1 or Day #15 or Day #60 or Day #89 any different?

How is any of this abuse of the K-1?

For us here in the Russian forum, most likely our SO (plus others from specific countries) never has been to the US.

So there is a large difference between our situations than other couples say from VWP countries whose SO may have visited here.

We can prepare our SO as best we can for the life change they agree to go through but nothing compares than actually doing it.

So in essence, yes there is a "trial" component to the K-1. Or maybe a better way to state it, there is a "safety relief" available to the SO.

And I agree, relationship-wise, we all should have a solid relationship and committment.

[mox 298]

Although I DO think you've hit upon the solution ---- EVERYone who wants to use the K-1 as a "trial period" should be completely open and honest (which is after all, the "responsible adult" thing to do ) and include this caveat language within their "Statement of Intent". If USCIS approves their petitions and the Embassy issues the visas with these caveats in place -- then more power to them and enjoy the "free trial"!! Anyone out there willing to take that challenge?

And while we're at it, we should also disclose to the government if we're going to have ####### or oral sex with our fiance(e), if we plan to have children (and how many), what religion we are and what religion we will raise our children to be, how many guns we own, the username and passwords to our Myspace and Facebook accounts, political party affiliations, and a list of books that we have ever checked out from the public library or bought on Amazon.com. After all, that would be the "responsible" thing to do, now wouldn't it.

My point is that the requirement is that the couple intends to marry within 90 days OR leave the country. So it's completely unnecessary to state your intention to "test the waters" because the mechanism (regardless of intent) is already built into the system. And quite frankly (as you well know), your average bureaucrat isn't going to look on the language you suggest kindly. Which may seem to score a point for your argument, but in my mind it's because your typical bureaucrat is also a mindless bureaucrat. As Ronald Reagan said (and you don't know how much it pains me to quote the guy), "the 9 scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Your suggestion is a bad one, not because it could result in a denial, but because it's none of the government's business. As long as you either marry or the non-USC departs within 90 days, the government shouldn't care less.

[Blues Fairy 0]

It's quite possible that using the K1 to "test the waters" dramatically increases the chance of the fiance(e) staying in the US.

... for all the wrong reasons.

[mox 298]

Which is apropos of nothing. People marry all the time for the wrong reasons. They also marry all the time for the right reasons, and yet 50% of marriages in the US still fail.

Maybe we should require that not only will the non-USC enter the country with the 100% absolute intention of marrying within 90 days, but that they won't ever divorce either.

[Blues Fairy 0]

Which is apropos of nothing. People marry all the time for the wrong reasons. They also marry all the time for the right reasons, and yet 50% of marriages in the US still fail.

So how do you apply these considerations to the OP's situation? It's okay if his girlfriend marries him for the wrong reasons? It's okay if they divorce as soon as she gets her green card? Happens all the time?

[Rob_Lesya 4]

Believe it or not, I agree 100%. But I would never want it codified into law.

Well, sorry to be the one to break it to you Mox, but it IS the law. The LIFE Act of 2001 (the one that sets the procedures for K visas) states that in order to be classified as a fiancee, a consular officer should receive a sworn statement of ability and intent to conclude a valid marriage within 90 days of arrival in the United States. Again, there are no qualifiers... no "ifs", no "in the event that...", no "with the caveat that"... you are to have a specific and definite intent at the time that you submit this document.

In addition, the Memo sent to all consular posts which outlines the procedures for adjudicating K-1 visa petitions states the following:

N6.2 Validity of a K-1 Petition

An approved K-1 visa petition is valid for a period of 4 months from the date of USCIS action and may be revalidated by the consular officer any number of times for additional periods of 4 months from the date of revalidation provided the officer concludes that the petitioner and the beneficiary remain legally free to marry and continue to intend to marry each other within 90 days after the beneficiary''s admission into the United States. However, the longer the period of time since the filing of the petition, the more the consular officer must be concerned about the intentions of the couple, particularly the intentions of the petitioner in the United States. If the officer is not convinced that the U.S. citizen petitioner continues to intend to marry the beneficiary, the petition should be returned to the approving office of USCIS with an explanatory memorandum. [see Sec. 41.81 PN7 for revalidation procedure.]

Again, they seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on both parties (but especially the US Citizen petitioner) having a specific and definite intent to go through with this marriage before any approval should take place.

So, stick your fingers in your ears, shout "LA-LA-LA" as much as you want, and continue to pretend that there is some sort of alternate reality in terms of what the law says and what the law requires, but submitting an I-129 and stating that you DO intend to marry someone when you really aren't sure about that intention --- is simply fraud.

Of course, you and Blues Fairy can debate forever whether or not that SHOULD be the law, but that's an endless circle I'm not going to get dragged into.

"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

[mox 298]

Which is apropos of nothing. People marry all the time for the wrong reasons. They also marry all the time for the right reasons, and yet 50% of marriages in the US still fail.

So how do you apply these considerations to the OP's situation? It's okay if his girlfriend marries him for the wrong reasons? It's okay if they divorce as soon as she gets her green card? Happens all the time?

I don't apply any of these considerations to the OP, because the 90 day trial period discussion is off-topic to the advice the OP was seeking. The OP has made it pretty clear that he's not using the 90 days as a trial period.

However...if hypothetically the OP were considering using the 90 days as a trial period, and if he were asking my advice, my advice would be to be as sure as they could possibly be before filing. I'm not advocating the use of the 90 days as a trial period, I'm saying that if a couple wants to use it in this manner then who am I or anybody else (especially the government) to judge?

[johnj 0]

May I interject a bit of sanity. Assume we all are of sound mine and law abiding (as we read the law); We all plan to marry our SO! I do not think any of us would argue: once you SO arrives and you prepare for the wedding; if he/she turns out to be a completely different person that you expected (douchbag, b!tch, violent, etc), you legally have 90 days to ship the "mail order" SO home. The SO also has that time to determine if I was a complete fake and leave me in my dust on her way back to her homeland, at my expense. I think the 90 days is there as a sort of compromise; I believe the government would prefer you married at the Passport Control Desk of the POE but they recognize some have reasons for a formal church wedding, wedding with family to arrange, etc.

Edited June 26, 2009 by john and natalya

[mox 298]

So, stick your fingers in your ears, shout "LA-LA-LA" as much as you want, and continue to pretend that there is some sort of alternate reality in terms of what the law says and what the law requires, but submitting an I-129 and stating that you DO intend to marry someone when you really aren't sure about that intention --- is simply fraud.

If you want me to concede that the intent of the law is that a couple marry within 90 days of the non-USC's arrival, I've already done so. You'll have no argument from me on that point. If somebody wants to file a K1 for their opposite-sex foreign friend because said friend wants to take a 90 day vacation, then you and I are absolutely on the same side.

What I'm trying (unsuccessfully I guess) to get across is that there is a deeper element to the "intent to marry." No matter what you or the government wants to believe, the decision is not a binary decision for everybody. You can intend to marry and have your own personal caveats, and there's not a thing in the world wrong with it. If you and your fiancee intended 100% no if's, ands' or buts, to marry within 90 days, and then she cheats on day 89, are you committing fraud by sending her home on day 90 instead of marrying her? After all, you didn't say "I intend to marry her unless she cheats on me," you said "I intend to marry her within 90 days." Under your interpretation, anything except marriage is fraud.

"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

"Blind, unreasoning obedience is the enemy of morality." - Robert Ingersoll