I think its a new rule but whats it about????

[rosezahra 0]

Multiple K Visas

The Act places two new restrictions on multiple K-1 visas:

A petitioner must wait two years from the filing of a prior K-1 visa until a second K-1 visa may be issued

A petitioner is barred from obtaining fiancé(e) visas for more than two foreign nationals. A waiver based on a showing of “extreme hardship” is possible in such cases, although not if a petitioner has a record of violent criminal offenses. “Record” is explicitly not restricted to criminal court records.

A database will be maintained by the Department of Homeland Security to track multiple fiancé(e) and spousal visa petitions.

Discussion

The new rules will have a substantial impact on K-1 petitioners who met through international marriage brokers. It should not affect petitioners who met though services like Yahoo! Personals which provide contact services with foreign nationals as an incidental part of their services. The fiancé(e) will be asked in every instance whether she met her fiancée through a matchmaking site. If she replies untruthfully and is found out (a very real possibility), she will be denied the visa and barred from ever receiving a U.S. visa of any kind. If she admits to the means of acquaintance, but can not convince the consular officer that the marriage agency provided her with the required disclosures, the visa will be refused, and at best the case will go into administrative review. The principal short-term question is how the consulates will treat K-1 visa beneficiaries who became acquainted before the law took effect. The answer to this question is unknown as yet, but may be answered by implementing regulations.

[pax 0]

All it means is that:

1.) A U.S. citizen cannot petition for more than one beneficiary of a K visa at one time;

2.) Couples who met via international marriage brokers must disclose this fact (which, really, they always had to do anyway--the I-129F asks how you met, and 99% of couples are asked how they met during interviews);

3.) The prospective foreign spouse must be apprised of his or her rights to not be subject to abuse or cruelty, and must be informed of any criminal past on the part of the U.S. citizen.

[Yodrak 7]

pax,

1) I believe it means more than that. A petitioner who has 2 petitions behind them is going to have some restrictions to deal with for petitions #3 and more.

2) If the marriage broker associated with a particular visa applicant is not operating in full compliance with the law, and some may not due the the effort and expense that may be involved, there may be problems with getting the visa approved. The marriage broker may be beyond the reach of US sanctions for not complying with the law, but the petitioner and the visa applicant is not.

3) Right. Hence the potential problem for petitioners and visa applicants if the marriage broker they used did not adhere to the background information requirements.

How things will actually play out won't be known until the implementing regulations have been written, and then how the regulations are interpretted and put into practice. As one immigration lawyer has told me, "The statutory language is quite ambiguous on many points, including, retroactivity and, what constitutes and "approval". The good news is that more lawyers' kids get to go to college."

Yodrak

All it means is that:

1.) A U.S. citizen cannot petition for more than one beneficiary of a K visa at one time;

2.) Couples who met via international marriage brokers must disclose this fact (which, really, they always had to do anyway--the I-129F asks how you met, and 99% of couples are asked how they met during interviews);

3.) The prospective foreign spouse must be apprised of his or her rights to not be subject to abuse or cruelty, and must be informed of any criminal past on the part of the U.S. citizen.

[pax 0]

Thanks for the clarifications. Didn't mean to oversimplify.

[rebeccajo 14]

2.) Couples who met via international marriage brokers must disclose this fact (which, really, they always had to do anyway--the I-129F asks how you met, and 99% of couples are asked how they met during interviews);

I agree, Abby, that couples are asked how they met, and many meet online. But in the past I am not certain that CO's inquired specifically about the website. I noted in a report by one of our UK compatriots on their recent interview (last week) that when they responded to meeting online, the CO asked 'what website did you meet on?'.

Wes and I were never asked the name of any specific website.

Edited February 14, 2006 by rebeccajo

[ceriserose 1]

At our K1 interview, after telling them on the forms we'd met online, we were asked which website. (We'd actually met on an online game, run by mutual friends.)

So the question was being asked already, but probably without the same intent. At least I doubt it, coming from Canada (neither a high-fraud or typically marriage-brokered country...at least in terms of US immigration).

[pax 0]

Ewen was asked, I think. And keep in mind that while Canadian, British, and probably most EU interviews are fairly brief and cursory, interviews at high-fraud consulates can last hours (Manila, Moscow, HCMC, Lagos...) and the subject would almost definitely be covered in specific detail...precisely the consulates at which couples would be more likely to have met through brokers than at other consulates.

Edited February 15, 2006 by pax

[rebeccajo 14]

Ewen was asked, I think. And keep in mind that while Canadian, British, and probably most EU interviews are fairly brief and cursory, interviews at high-fraud consulates can last hours (Manila, Moscow, HCMC, Lagos...) and the subject would almost definitely be covered in specific detail...precisely the consulates at which couples would be more likely to have met through brokers than at other consulates.

Exactly, Abby. I was meaning (guess I didnt say it very well) that I think it will probably be asked now at all consulates.

[borninabarn 0]

All it means is that:

1.) A U.S. citizen cannot petition for more than one beneficiary of a K visa at one time;

2.) Couples who met via international marriage brokers must disclose this fact (which, really, they always had to do anyway--the I-129F asks how you met, and 99% of couples are asked how they met during interviews);

3.) The prospective foreign spouse must be apprised of his or her rights to not be subject to abuse or cruelty, and must be informed of any criminal past on the part of the U.S. citizen.

I guess i dont understand some of you trying to petition fiances many times

just because you couldnt have the first ONE you are going for another one.What happened to the one before??Im sure there are different circumstances but.I thought everything came from the heart where i come from.I think there should be more checks on people so each of them dont end up hurt!!

[rebeccajo 14]

All it means is that:

1.) A U.S. citizen cannot petition for more than one beneficiary of a K visa at one time;

2.) Couples who met via international marriage brokers must disclose this fact (which, really, they always had to do anyway--the I-129F asks how you met, and 99% of couples are asked how they met during interviews);

3.) The prospective foreign spouse must be apprised of his or her rights to not be subject to abuse or cruelty, and must be informed of any criminal past on the part of the U.S. citizen.

I guess i dont understand some of you trying to petition fiances many times

just because you couldnt have the first ONE you are going for another one.What happened to the one before??Im sure there are different circumstances but.I thought everything came from the heart where i come from.I think there should be more checks on people so each of them dont end up hurt!!

Gosh, where DID I put that stack of I-129F's?

[*Robert* 2]

Gosh, where DID I put that stack of I-129F's?

Don't worry, I got plenty if you need them. I'm only on fiancee number 5 right now!

Just can't keep away from those foreign women!

[Yodrak 7]

borninabarn,

I expect that the people who post, 'I've been scammed, how do I get her (or him) deported?' would agree with you.

On the other hand, I expect that the people who are upset by the time it takes now would not be in favor of additional checking into personal issues. Nor would many of the people whose visas have been denied based on failure to prove a bona fide relationship.

Personally, I'm a 2-timer myself. The first relationship just didn't work out, as don't some 50% of marriages that don't involve immigration. More checks by the USCIS or the DoS wouldn't have prevented that problem. Perhaps more thought and care on my part might have.

Yodrak

just because you couldnt have the first ONE you are going for another one.What happened to the one before??Im sure there are different circumstances but.I thought everything came from the heart where i come from.I think there should be more checks on people so each of them dont end up hurt!!

[ewen 0]

Ewen was asked, I think.

...

I wasn't asked which website. I was asked how we met and I answered "we met through an Internet discussion forum on our favourite rock band". The CO asked what band and I said "U2" and that was all. Just thought I'd clear that up for our particular case. Maybe he was a U2 fan himself because that was the last question asked before granting me my visa with a big smile on his face!

Edited February 15, 2006 by ewen

[pax 0]

Thanks, sweetie.

[Peter Miami 0]

Excellent news!

Peter Miami