156 part 2 - what if not yet engaged?

[IgorK 0]

Thank you for your help once again! I don't know what I would do without this board/family!!!

[Kailey 3]

To the author of the topic – no, she doesn’t have to present a ring. But she should say ‘yes’ to ‘are you engaged’ question + should be ready to tell a story on how you proposed to her. And i think it doesn’t matter to the officer if it was on the top of Montblanc or when you were snorkeling or you called her at 3am and simply said ‘hey, let’s marry’. The officer needs to know that there IS a story.

to Mox: when you say that those immigration officers are like a cattle and that they are stupid - you really think so?

Why do you expect the immigration officers to really try to understand each and every situation? They might – after work in a bar with a mug of beer they will listen to that ‘we want a K1 but we are not yet engaged but we want to marry but we don’t have a ring but we are really committed but not fully sure but give us the visa …’’ story and will be even willing to understand all the twists and peculiarities of it . But during office hours, it’s not their job. Their task - to not let fraud cases pass and to see that all the paperwork is done correctly. Applicants’ task - to present the case as a perfect case ever.

It's not about officers being stupid. I’m sure they have quite a training before they are allowed to stand in those booths. Sometimes people who come to interview behave really stupid. And even a best case can get rejected if presented in a hesitating and therefore suspicious way.

+ as for being easily intimidated.. have you ever been to an interview? I was several times – i wouldn’t say they are meek at all. And to the most of all they have a complete carte blanch giving “NO”s. They don’t even have to provide explanations why they said ‘NO”. There is a generic explaining letter that basically says – you lost because the officer thinks so, try next time.

[mox 298]

to Mox: when you say that those immigration officers are like a cattle and that they are stupid - you really think so?

Well, my exact quote was "They're like cattle. They're stupid and frighten easily." I was being flippant. No, I don't believe they're stupid, but I *do* believe they're given a very narrow set of parameters to work with. They have about a zillion interviews to get though in a day, and there are certain key phrases they want to hear, such as "we are engaged."

The trick is, you don't want them to have to make decisions. You want them to check check-boxes like a robot. Because once you start asking them to think, then they are making decisions about your relationship and your future. You have to hope you have a reasonable human being sitting in front of you who makes reasonable decisions. When you say "we are engaged," they check a box. When you say "not yet, but we will have an official engagement in the US," then they have to make a decision. And if your interviewer is having a bad day, you might have one too.

Why do you expect the immigration officers to really try to understand each and every situation? They might – after work in a bar with a mug of beer they will listen to that ‘we want a K1 but we are not yet engaged but we want to marry but we don’t have a ring but we are really committed but not fully sure but give us the visa …’’ story and will be even willing to understand all the twists and peculiarities of it . But during office hours, it’s not their job. Their task - to not let fraud cases pass and to see that all the paperwork is done correctly. Applicants’ task - to present the case as a perfect case ever.

It's not about officers being stupid. I’m sure they have quite a training before they are allowed to stand in those booths. Sometimes people who come to interview behave really stupid. And even a best case can get rejected if presented in a hesitating and therefore suspicious way.

My point EXACTLY. I don't expect them to understand every situation. That's why you want your situation to be as close to text-book "fiance(e) visa" as possible. I don't advocate lying, but I do advocate telling the interviewer exactly what he wants to hear in this case.

[baron555 934]

to Mox: when you say that those immigration officers are like a cattle and that they are stupid - you really think so?

Well, my exact quote was "They're like cattle. They're stupid and frighten easily." I was being flippant. No, I don't believe they're stupid, but I *do* believe they're given a very narrow set of parameters to work with. They have about a zillion interviews to get though in a day, and there are certain key phrases they want to hear, such as "we are engaged."

The trick is, you don't want them to have to make decisions. You want them to check check-boxes like a robot. Because once you start asking them to think, then they are making decisions about your relationship and your future. You have to hope you have a reasonable human being sitting in front of you who makes reasonable decisions. When you say "we are engaged," they check a box. When you say "not yet, but we will have an official engagement in the US," then they have to make a decision. And if your interviewer is having a bad day, you might have one too.

Why do you expect the immigration officers to really try to understand each and every situation? They might – after work in a bar with a mug of beer they will listen to that ‘we want a K1 but we are not yet engaged but we want to marry but we don’t have a ring but we are really committed but not fully sure but give us the visa …’’ story and will be even willing to understand all the twists and peculiarities of it . But during office hours, it’s not their job. Their task - to not let fraud cases pass and to see that all the paperwork is done correctly. Applicants’ task - to present the case as a perfect case ever.

It's not about officers being stupid. I’m sure they have quite a training before they are allowed to stand in those booths. Sometimes people who come to interview behave really stupid. And even a best case can get rejected if presented in a hesitating and therefore suspicious way.

My point EXACTLY. I don't expect them to understand every situation. That's why you want your situation to be as close to text-book "fiance(e) visa" as possible. I don't advocate lying, but I do advocate telling the interviewer exactly what he wants to hear in this case.

I agree with Mox. As in the dog showing business, "Don't let the judges have to think!"