Red Alert -- Guides Correction Needed

[TBoneTX 45,308]

See this thread:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/346279-how-can-a-k-1-misrepresentation-denial-be-overturned/page__pid__5187927__st__75#entry5187927

and look particularly at post #78.

Some (perhaps most) U.S. consulates would take a very dim and suspicious view of being handed documents with redacted information. It's an invitation to trouble. Accordingly, I suggest that the Guides (all of them in which the statement appears) be corrected to say "Do not include enclosures or attachments with lines of text blacked out" or similar.

At the same time, a strong warning should be added to the K-1 Guide to say, "In electronic correspondence and on social websites, do NOT under ANY circumstances refer to yourselves as 'husband' or 'wife' even playfully, and perform extra checking to ensure that no such information is available to the consulate where the beneficiary will interview. Ignoring this warning can risk refusal of the visa and a finding of fraud."

Admiral, si man?

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I suppose I'd rather suggest leaving out messages in their entirety if they are too personal. Have folks really had issues with redacting personal portions of printed documents? The basic requirement is simply to prove folks have met in the last two years and intend to marry within 90 days of entry to the US. Some consulates in high fraud countries like to see that the relationship is indeed valid more than others and this proof helps with that.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I should add to note I have never head of a CO having an issue with personal info being redacted. It is always possible I suppose but I have not heard of it.

[TBoneTX 45,308]

Thanks for the quick response, Admiral. I'll see if I can get pushbrk over here to comment. And, I do remember a rather recent thread in which this pickle was mentioned, but I have no way of re-finding it unless I re-stumble upon it.

---

Edited to add: pushbrk contacted. Hitting the hay soon (me, that is).

Edited February 29, 2012 by TBoneTX

[pushbrk 12,898]

I should add to note I have never head of a CO having an issue with personal info being redacted. It is always possible I suppose but I have not heard of it.

Well, I have. The couple needed to provide the unredacted version before a visa would be issued. The CO said it looked like they were discussing how to commit fraud. My recommendation is that if something needs to be redacted in some correspondence or document, don't use the document at all. Choose another one. I also agree with the admonition to avoid calling your unmarried fiance any name one would use to mean spouse. That one, I've seen lots more problems with.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Certainly reasonable -- I'll adjust it to match.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Along this line of reasoning, might it be prudent to include an explanation of what a K1 is... a visa to marry in the US? And a warning not to marry elsewhere? I have seen a lot of people lately who say they want to get married in the home country after visa issuance (and before POE) or have a "non-legal" wedding ceremony with a priest, one of which is outright fraud and the other is skating a very thin line, if it's not fraud itself.

On the other hand, I am not sure if a website is responsible for all of people's crazy ideas...

[sara..... 371]

i think that something else needs to be addressed for Pakistan, India and the Mid East......K1

when a formal engagement is done the couple needs to be very careful and give proof it was only an engagement because some of the embassy's will insist that it was a wedding.....

Also from the problems we had not having a formal engagement put a red flag up..... if both people are not Muslim it is not so much of a red flag but for both to be Muslim with out the formal engagement it is

'

just my opinion

sara

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Certainly reasonable -- I'll adjust it to match.

Complete.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Please review the updates I made with the above suggestions. Very top of the guides (k-1 has extra on the bottom as well as the top):

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?autocom=custom&page=k1guide

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?autocom=custom&page=i130guide1

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?autocom=custom&page=k3guide

[TBoneTX 45,308]

Pushbrk and the Admiral to the rescue, si man.

Please review the updates I made with the above suggestions. Very top of the guides (k-1 has extra on the bottom as well as the top):

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?autocom=custom&page=k1guide

In this one, the final paragraph reads:

"A K-1 Visa holder may enter the United States only one time with their visa. If the K-1 Visa holder leaves the country before they are married, they may not be allowed back into the United States without a new visa. Also, if they have applied for and are waiting on approval of an adjustment of status petition, do not leave the US without also having applied for and received an approved advance parole as doing so may result in the inability to re-enter the US and in abandoning the petition for adjustment of status."

A flaw in the English language is the lack of a gender-neutral third-person-singular pronoun, sigh man. Other tweaks can make things clearer. To avoid misreading, I suggest the following (changes = boldface):

"A K-1 Visa holder can enter the United States only one time with this visa. Upon entry, the K-1 visa is cancelled, and the I-94 form issued upon entry becomes the controlling document. If the K-1 entrant leaves the U.S. before marriage to the original petitioner, re-entry into the U.S. might not be allowed without a new visa. Also, if the K-1 entrant has applied for and is waiting on approval of an Adjustment of Status petition, the K-1 entrant should not leave the U.S. without also having applied for and received approved Advance Parole -- doing so could result in the inability to re-enter the U.S., and it indicates abandonment of the petition for Adjustment of Status. (Note that even approved Advance Parole does not guarantee re-entry into the U.S.)"

The new second and final sentences can help drill these eternally re-asked points into people's brains.

I may have set a new record for number of times "preview post" has been hit, si man. Edited to add: Bummer -- had to formally edit to apply a tweak, man.

Edited March 1, 2012 by TBoneTX

[luckytxn 2,264]

Pushbrk and the Admiral to the rescue, si man.

In this one, the final paragraph reads:

"A K-1 Visa holder may enter the United States only one time with their visa. If the K-1 Visa holder leaves the country before they are married, they may not be allowed back into the United States without a new visa. Also, if they have applied for and are waiting on approval of an adjustment of status petition, do not leave the US without also having applied for and received an approved advance parole as doing so may result in the inability to re-enter the US and in abandoning the petition for adjustment of status."

A flaw in the English language is the lack of a gender-neutral third-person-singular pronoun, sigh man. Other tweaks can make things clearer. To avoid misreading, I suggest the following (changes = boldface):

"A K-1 Visa holder can enter the United States only one time with this visa. Upon entry, the K-1 visa is cancelled, and the I-94 form issued upon entry becomes the controlling document. If the K-1 entrant leaves the U.S. before marriage to the original petitioner, re-entry into the U.S. might not be allowed without a new visa. Also, if the K-1 entrant has applied for and is waiting on approval of an Adjustment of Status petition, the K-1 entrant should not leave the U.S. without also having applied for and received approved Advance Parole -- doing so could result in the inability to re-enter the U.S., and it indicates abandonment of the petition for Adjustment of Status. (Note that even approved Advance Parole does not guarantee re-entry into the U.S.)"

The new second and final sentences can help drill these eternally re-asked points into people's brains.

I may have set a new record for number of times "preview post" has been hit, si man. Edited to add: Bummer -- had to formally edit to apply a tweak, man.

Wow.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Fixed per your many corrections!!

[luckytxn 2,264]

Pushbrk and the Admiral to the rescue, si man.

In this one, the final paragraph reads:

"A K-1 Visa holder may enter the United States only one time with their visa. If the K-1 Visa holder leaves the country before they are married, they may not be allowed back into the United States without a new visa. Also, if they have applied for and are waiting on approval of an adjustment of status petition, do not leave the US without also having applied for and received an approved advance parole as doing so may result in the inability to re-enter the US and in abandoning the petition for adjustment of status."

A flaw in the English language is the lack of a gender-neutral third-person-singular pronoun, sigh man. Other tweaks can make things clearer. To avoid misreading, I suggest the following (changes = boldface):

"A K-1 Visa holder can enter the United States only one time with this visa. Upon entry, the K-1 visa is cancelled, and the I-94 form issued upon entry becomes the controlling document. If the K-1 entrant leaves the U.S. before marriage to the original petitioner, re-entry into the U.S. might not be allowed without a new visa. Also, if the K-1 entrant has applied for and is waiting on approval of an Adjustment of Status petition, the K-1 entrant should not leave the U.S. without also having applied for and received approved Advance Parole -- doing so could result in the inability to re-enter the U.S., and it indicates abandonment of the petition for Adjustment of Status. (Note that even approved Advance Parole does not guarantee re-entry into the U.S.)"

The new second and final sentences can help drill these eternally re-asked points into people's brains.

I may have set a new record for number of times "preview post" has been hit, si man. Edited to add: Bummer -- had to formally edit to apply a tweak, man.

It was pretty plain to me at least before. I don't see a flaw in the English language. I had to read the correction twice to be sure I read it right. And since I am so highly intelligent myself I can just imagine what is going to do with some of the brains we have here when they read it.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

T-bone knows how to edit, indeed. Now I just need someone to edit what I'm working on...