156 part 2 - what if not yet engaged?

[IgorK 0]

What if there was a verbal agreement and I was planning to propose when she is here in the States? I have not purchased the ring just yet. Has anybody been in the similar situation? We are talking US Embassy in Moscow.

Thank you!

[baron555 934]

What if there was a verbal agreement and I was planning to propose when she is here in the States? I have not purchased the ring just yet. Has anybody been in the similar situation? We are talking US Embassy in Moscow.

Thank you!

Engagement is not a requirement. For the K-1 you only have to be legally able to marry when you first files the petition and that you understand that you have to marry within 90 days of entry into the US or they go back. So to be serious, I guess the intent is that you intend to marry each other; this is what some will call being engaged. Rings don't enter into the equation. Not a problem.

[IgorK 0]

What if there was a verbal agreement and I was planning to propose when she is here in the States? I have not purchased the ring just yet. Has anybody been in the similar situation? We are talking US Embassy in Moscow.

Thank you!

Engagement is not a requirement. For the K-1 you only have to be legally able to marry when you first files the petition and that you understand that you have to marry within 90 days of entry into the US or they go back. So to be serious, I guess the intent is that you intend to marry each other; this is what some will call being engaged. Rings don't enter into the equation. Not a problem.

Baron555 - thank you! I am quite relieved to be honest. Earlier today I was filling out 156 for my SO and I wasn't sure what they meant by "proof". So I am assuming I need to send my SO a new letter of intent with a date that is closer to her interview along with affidavit of support, w2, 1040 pay stabs and letter from my job?

Thank you!

[IgorK 0]

The only thing I would add is that the K1 is a fiance(e) visa. Which means that for purposes of immigration, she is your fiancee. Make sure she understands this for her interview. Some people have reported that they were asked when their SO proposed to them. She should be ready to answer this question.

Thank you. We are celebrating 9 years since we met each other this Saturday , 5000 miles apart though . I am aware of their questions, but would saying that we made a "verbal agreement" during our last time together + letter of intent be good enough?

[IgorK 0]

If I were in your shoes I would avoid all language that looks like you're trying to avoid saying that she is your fiancee.

You just lost me with this phrase... I haven't "officially" proposed yet, but it is given that I will and we are getting married within 90 days of her arrival...

[payxibka 10,048]

a formal engagement that includes a symbolic ring is not required... however a "engagement" of the heart (desire to be husband and wife) needs to have occured. A K-1 is not a "test drive" visa...

[Rob_Lesya 4]

You just lost me with this phrase... I haven't "officially" proposed yet, but it is given that I will and we are getting married within 90 days of her arrival...

Then she "officially" isn't your fiancee yet. I believe Mox is trying to make you aware that since the K-1 is a "fiancee visa", some CO's might let you get away with becoming "officially" engaged after she arrives here.... many will not. So why risk it? Ask her the question now.... have her say "yes" and have a huge engagement party after she arrives.

[SMR 368]

If I were in your shoes I would avoid all language that looks like you're trying to avoid saying that she is your fiancee.

You just lost me with this phrase... I haven't "officially" proposed yet, but it is given that I will and we are getting married within 90 days of her arrival...

As payxibka says, there's no requirement that you have an "official" engagement with a ring and all. But there is a requirement that she be your fiancee. If, for example, the officer were to outright ask her "are you engaged yet?" then her answer should be an unequivocal yes. Anything else such as "he hasn't officially proposed to me but we do intend to marry" could possibly confuse the officer. And remember, these are federal workers you are dealing with. They're like cattle. They're stupid and frighten easily. So handle your relationship however you want to between yourselves, but when it comes to immigration you should tell them exactly what they want to hear. IMO that means telling them you are engaged.

Exactly. Legally speaking for immigration purposes, if you intend to get married, you are engaged and she is your fiancée. Don't complicate it with rings and an official proposal. That's between you.

[IgorK 0]

She did say yes and we are getting married, this is not a "trial" run by any means.

[baron555 934]

If I were in your shoes I would avoid all language that looks like you're trying to avoid saying that she is your fiancee.

You just lost me with this phrase... I haven't "officially" proposed yet, but it is given that I will and we are getting married within 90 days of her arrival...

If you both have talked about getting married and promised to do that with your letters of intent that you sent in with the K-1 petition, then you are engaged to be married. If you two did not talk about it, then you should stop the process and wait until you both agree to be married.

Immigration doesn't care about rings or getting down on your knee; they just want you both to promise to get married. Doing anything less is against the intent of the K-1. It isn't a "let's get together and see what happens" visa. It assumes you have a valid relationship and both intend to marry within the 90 days. What you do on your own is up to you.

And if you have any qualms about getting married to this person or her to you, then you both should stop the process and work on the relationship. Don't become like so many we read about here on VJ, "We got married but a few months later it didn't work out."

[IgorK 0]

If I were in your shoes I would avoid all language that looks like you're trying to avoid saying that she is your fiancee.

You just lost me with this phrase... I haven't "officially" proposed yet, but it is given that I will and we are getting married within 90 days of her arrival...

As payxibka says, there's no requirement that you have an "official" engagement with a ring and all. But there is a requirement that she be your fiancee. If, for example, the officer were to outright ask her "are you engaged yet?" then her answer should be an unequivocal yes. Anything else such as "he hasn't officially proposed to me but we do intend to marry" could possibly confuse the officer. And remember, these are federal workers you are dealing with. They're like cattle. They're stupid and frighten easily. So handle your relationship however you want to between yourselves, but when it comes to immigration you should tell them exactly what they want to hear. IMO that means telling them you are engaged.

Thank you. It is unfortunate how they do things, but hey, I am glad we are able to be re-united!

If I were in your shoes I would avoid all language that looks like you're trying to avoid saying that she is your fiancee.

You just lost me with this phrase... I haven't "officially" proposed yet, but it is given that I will and we are getting married within 90 days of her arrival...

If you both have talked about getting married and promised to do that with your letters of intent that you sent in with the K-1 petition, then you are engaged to be married. If you two did not talk about it, then you should stop the process and wait until you both agree to be married.

And if you have any qualms about getting married to this person or her to you, then you both should stop the process and work on the relationship. Don't become like so many we read about here on VJ, "We got married but a few months later it didn't work out."

Absolutely. I just wasn't sure what exactly they meant by proof of engagement in DS156.

[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.

[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!"