Should the 90 days time limit to get married extended to 365 days?

[slim 1,514]

I think a USC should be able to sponsor 1 person for as long as they want - without having to get married. When they're ready to get married, they get married, but not until then.

If they sponsor someone then they're responsible for that person. If they don't take care of them or don't get married, then either the beneficiary gets signed over to someone else or they get shipped back at the original sponsor's expense. If the beneficiary chooses to marry someone else or leave the sponsor and live on their own, they're immediately out of status and have to go back or find a new sponsor.

[jundp 191]

Nope. If you aren't ready to get married then don't apply for a K1.

If the time were to be extended - say to 120 days, then absolutely they should NOT have the option to apply for AP or EAD.

[toma1 10]

If the time were to be extended - say to 120 days, then absolutely they should NOT have the option to apply for AP or EAD.

LOL... and what is the rationale for that?

[jundp 191]

Because I think it opens the door for more abuse and fraud. If the time limit before marriage is extended, so be it. But as some have suggested, then the fiance should be allowed to apply for AP and EAD. I disagree. The K1 is a FAMILY based visa and the privilege to work and travel are granted after marriage. A fiance is not yet 'family' by the legal sense of the word.

[toma1 10]

Actually, on his second post, the OP asked "don't you think 2 person should live with each other for at least 365 days before getting married." Maybe my English comprehension skills aren't as good as I think they are, but if that's not inviting a discussion, I don't know what is.

Sigh. Try to think about this more broadly. It's not about the discussion. It's about society imposing arbitrary limits on courtship and marriage, whether it be the length of the relationship, the "time frame" for a marriage to take place, etc. I hate to be spewing a constant stream of quotes, but another that fits this thread QUITE well is:

"What difference is it to me if a decision is forced upon me by a dictator or by half of my neighbors? Either way my right to free, peaceful action has been nullified."

-– Stephen H. Foerster

And knowing that I will be uprooting my entire life shortly, to be in a foreign country, is still intimidating.

You are the beneficiary? Sorry, I have signatures off, maybe I missed seeing it there.

I think a USC should be able to sponsor 1 person for as long as they want - without having to get married. When they're ready to get married, they get married, but not until then.

If they sponsor someone then they're responsible for that person. If they don't take care of them or don't get married, then either the beneficiary gets signed over to someone else or they get shipped back at the original sponsor's expense. If the beneficiary chooses to marry someone else or leave the sponsor and live on their own, they're immediately out of status and have to go back or find a new sponsor.

Interesting. At first glance, I like that idea--at least as a starting point to overhauling the entire immigration system.

[christeen 966]

I think 6 months would be acceptable. I am a wedding vendor and I book anywhere from 5-18 months in advance!!! Someone coming to me 89 days before a wedding there would be a slim chance that I would be available during busy season...

Also, it is difficult enough for the incoming immigrant to adjust to life here in the US, how things work and living with their SO PLUS the added stress of planning a wedding in a country most have never set foot in. For some the wedding is the biggest moment of their lives and they do not want to do it halfway first, then the big to do... it taked away from the big day... And for some religions and families, having a big church/synagog wedding is a BIG thing and requires pre-marital classes that take more than 90 days.

However, I believe a petitioner should be limited to ONE beneficerary every 3-5 years to avoid abuse on the side of the USC shacking up for a year with whomever they can get over here... And there should be NO aos or anything UNTIL the intending immigrant becomes a LEGAL part of the USCs family.

But 1 year is entirely too long!

[toma1 10]

Because I think it opens the door for more abuse and fraud.

Specifically how? In other words, how would fraud be substantially worsened by granting, for example, an AP for an additional 90 day time period?

At the moment it sounds like you are just trying to punish people for some unknown reason.

[Ricardo_C 4]

Sigh. Try to think about this more broadly. It's not about the discussion. It's about society imposing arbitrary limits on courtship and marriage, whether it be the length of the relationship, the "time frame" for a marriage to take place, etc. I hate to be spewing a constant stream of quotes, but another that fits this thread QUITE well is:

"What difference is it to me if a decision is forced upon me by a dictator or by half of my neighbors? Either way my right to free, peaceful action has been nullified."

-– Stephen H. Foerster

As part of a community, sometimes we have decisions thrust upon us. Sometimes, what will yield the greatest benefit to the largest amount of people, is not what will yield the greatest benefit to me personally. In a perfect world, Slim's plan would work every time and never be abused. In a perfect world, my wife and I wouldn't have to spend months apart at a time, in between her visits to Venezuela. In a perfect world, I wouldn't be sweating my visa interview because I would have already been there with her for months.

But it's not a perfect world, people do abuse the system, and compromises are necessary. Time-limited fiancé visas are one of those compromises. I don't want to see them disappear, but I also don't think they warrant widening.

You are the beneficiary? Sorry, I have signatures off, maybe I missed seeing it there.

Nah, I don't make a point of hiding or broadcasting it If it comes up, it comes up. Don't have a timeline in my sig.

[toma1 10]

Sometimes, what will yield the greatest benefit to the largest amount of people, is not what will yield the greatest benefit to me personally.

One might also argue that it would "yield the greatest benefit to the largest amount of people" if, when cops caught someone in the act of committing a felony that they summarily execute them on the spot and save the rest of us the cost of a trial, but that's just not the way we do things here. Well, except in the case of immigration. In that case we xenophobically assume that all foreigners are evil unless proven otherwise.

Nah, I don't make a point of hiding or broadcasting it If it comes up, it comes up. Don't have a timeline in my sig.

So English is your second language? Wow. You fooled me for sure. Kudos.

[jundp 191]

Specifically how? In other words, how would fraud be substantially worsened by granting, for example, an AP for an additional 90 day time period?

At the moment it sounds like you are just trying to punish people for some unknown reason.

Well I certainly am not advocating 'punishing' someone. However, in my years on VJ I've seen many cases of marriage fraud. It's quite sad. It's also quite frustrating at clogging up the system and taking valuable time away from processing bona fide cases. IMHO opening up the time frame to a year and then allowing AP/EAD -- thus removing the need to marry before receiving these privileges -- it allows more room for people to take advantage/be taken advantage of.

My opinion. But I also don't believe the 90 days should be used as a 'get to know you' time. By the time you've reached the fiance stage, you should already know if you want to get married. If you don't, then you shouldn't have gotten engaged.

[toma1 10]

opening up the time frame to a year and then allowing AP/EAD -- thus removing the need to marry before receiving these privileges -- it allows more room for people to take advantage/be taken advantage of.

Yes, we all agree that marriage fraud is bad, but you still haven't told us HOW stopping EAD and AP applications would prevent fraud. You just say that it will, but not why. What is your rationale for this theory?

[toma1 10]

Mikkel, the parody in your signature is fantastic! Is that yours, or is it a quote from somewhere else?

[sachinky 464]

You're applying for a fiancee visa. Meaning: that somewhere in that time the question "Will you marry me?" has been asked in some form or language and that proposal has been accepted. Meaning that both parties are serious about where this relationship is going to end up--in marriage. Only then apply for a K-1. For your fiancee. The person you're sure you want to marry. Yes, I understands things do happen but you have to at least be certain when sending in the petition. I can't imagine spending all this time, money and effort or enduring through this hellish process for someone I wasn't wholeheartedly sure about and just wanted to give it a "try to see how it goes."

So where does this "get-to-know" time extension come in? IMO, that should have happened BEFORE you popped the question. Surely you're not going around proposing marriage to someone who is a little more than a stranger, maybe a friendly acquaintance?

[Mikkel 0]

And the point I'm trying to make is that there's no threshold for when one "really" knows what married life, either at home or abroad, is going to be like. You can get a feel for the other person's culture. You can spend time with them. You can spend time in each other's country. And it still won't be enough. At some point, you have to say "I'm ready for this adventure", and do it. Man, I've known my wife for seven years. I've known her family just as long. I know her culture inside and out, and she does mine. We have lived together before and after marriage. And knowing that I will be uprooting my entire life shortly, to be in a foreign country, is still intimidating. In the end, it comes down to being able to honestly tell yourself that you've made the choice that will bring you the most happiness. The rest is workable.

I don't think we're going to agree on this. I don't believe that people can "honestly tell themselves that they've made the choice that will bring them the most happiness" when there are so many aspects of the choice that will not become apparent or evident before the choice is made.

Look, I wish it were easier for partners to visit each other. It would certainly have made our journey a lot easier. But the potential for abuse is just too great. And people are already dealing with all-too-long waiting periods because of the sheer amount of petitions out there. Modifying the existing K-1 visa to basically be a "let's see how it goes" tourist visa would mean the system would be even more swamped than it already is.

I find that labeling it a "let's see how it goes" visa is derisive of the people who have a genuine intent to marry, but are unsure of how the move will affect them. It's a genuine, valid concern that cannot simply be dismissed as such. I fail to see how there is more potential for abuse on a 180-day K-1 visa than there is on a 90-day K-1 visa. Similarly, I fail to see how a 180-day K-1 visa would noticeably increase processing times for K-1 visas.

Mikkel, the parody in your signature is fantastic! Is that yours, or is it a quote from somewhere else?

Thank you! It is my own.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Mikkel

[Ricardo_C 4]

I find that labeling it a "let's see how it goes" visa is derisive of the people who have a genuine intent to marry, but are unsure of how the move will affect them. It's a genuine, valid concern that cannot simply be dismissed as such. I fail to see how there is more potential for abuse on a 180-day K-1 visa than there is on a 90-day K-1 visa. Similarly, I fail to see how a 180-day K-1 visa would noticeably increase processing times for K-1 visas.

Look at this thread.

OP is concerned about securing a visitor visa for her fiancé so they can spend time together and make sure they'll be as compatible in person as they are long-distance. Traveling to Pakistan is dangerous for her, and his chances of getting a US tourist visa are slim.

What's the advice she's mainly being given? "Just do a K-1 and see how it goes".

Without making any judgment calls on her particular case, which is certainly complicated, and which strikes me as much more serious than "I kinda like this person, let's see how it goes", if more people went this route, especially with the added incentive of an extended "getting to know you" period, I believe the number applications would increase dramatically, with an inevitable increase in processing times as a result. If the fiancé visa de facto becomes a "boyfriend/girlfriend" tourist visa, many more people will opt for it.