legally married?

[zyggy 9]

Adverse actions are and can only be taken with respect to "MATERIAL misrepresentations." A misrepresentation is only "material" if, in this context, the true facts would have made the alien excludable from this country or otherwise ineligible for the type of visa that he/she is relying upon to enter the country. A participation in a non legally binding ceremonial wedding does not make the alien ineligible for the K1 visa, which means that the alien's decision to withhold information about such wedding is NOT material. Once again, this is analogous to an alien misrepresenting the fact that he's previously watched the "Bachelor" -- the statute does NOT make the "Bachelor" watchers or the non-legally binding ceremony participants ineligible for K1 admission. Hence, any misrepresentations made in connection therewith are NOT material.

Again, I disagree... I believe that not divulging a non-legal wedding ceremony if asked would cut off a line of questioning that could result in an alien being denied entry due to there being doubts about the alien being "legally able to marry". Any response that would cut off a line of questions that could lead to the officer making a determination of inadmissibility in my opinion is a material misrepresentation..It is my opinion that the omission of the ceremony would be material in an officer's mind in regards to judging if that alien is admissible to the US...

Of course, it appears that you have the opposite opinion and that is okay... that's what courts of law and fora like this are for... to get the arguments out in the open... The reason why I presenting this point of view is because in my experience in CBP others share this point of view.. whether it is the right point of view or wrong.. it doesn't matter... the fact that the above point of view is significant in terms of how it could affect this community...

I appreciate your point of view am and your analysis and thank you for your contribution to our community...

Edited October 19, 2006 by zyggy

[am1996 0]

am1996 I find your posts interesting and they do give an other insite to immigration.... my overall feeling about your arguments that you give is that they would be well paced in a court room.... but as most of us only ever have contact with CBP and USCIS staff who being human will look at things in there own way... and the chances are we will never have to argue these points in a court of law.... the legal arguments you give will not do most of us any good... we are in there hands... but if I ever need someone to come and argue legal points I will sure give you a call...

Kezzie, respectfully, my posts in this thread do not contain any arguments but are, instead, an explanation of the existing procedure and the law. This is no different from you answering people's question about notary requirements for affidavits of support or K1 holders' ability to obtain EAD's, etc... The CBP and the USCIS follow these procedures and the law and I am quoting their own handbooks. All you can do is follow the established procedures and hope that the officers that you deal with will do the same.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

am1996 I find your posts interesting and they do give an other insite to immigration.... my overall feeling about your arguments that you give is that they would be well paced in a court room.... but as most of us only ever have contact with CBP and USCIS staff who being human will look at things in there own way... and the chances are we will never have to argue these points in a court of law.... the legal arguments you give will not do most of us any good... we are in there hands... but if I ever need someone to come and argue legal points I will sure give you a call...

Kezzie, respectfully, my posts in this thread do not contain any arguments but are, instead, an explanation of the existing procedure and the law. This is no different from you answering people's question about notary requirements for affidavits of support or K1 holders' ability to obtain EAD's, etc... The CBP and the USCIS follow these procedures and the law and I am quoting their own handbooks. All you can do is follow the established procedures and hope that the officers that you deal with will do the same.

The commentary you've offered has been focused on how a non-legally binding religious ceremony would not compromise the legal restrictions that the K1 visa carries. I'd be interested in knowing if your impression would be any different, say, in the case of a couple that had applied for a K1, and resided overseas together for some time, in a country where common-law marriage or putative marriage arrangements exist?

[Kez/JWolf 6]

In a perfect world everyone would do their job acording to the law and would follow procedure exactly.... but we do not live in a perfect world... everyone including CBP officers and USCIS staff have their own interpitation of the law and how they do their job.... we as the users of their services are very much subject to how they are feeling (bad day) how they see themselves within their jobs and all outside influences that make them who they are....

Us as immigrants are not in a position to tell them that we know the law and their interpitation is not correct... we turn up at the POE or USCIS meeting and hope to get out the otherside with as little hassle as we can... If they are having a bad day or they take a dislike to you there is very little we can do... this is especially true at POE because if this happens you can find yourself denied entry and on the first flight back from where you came.... you at that point are in no position to argue the law or the procedure...

I think what people here have been trying to say is why have something you feel the need to hide or not mention at POE or AOS interview when there is other ways to achieve the same result....

We all know that if you read the law for immigration it tells you one thing but in practice that is not always what happens in real life.... yes that is wrong and yes it should not happen and yes you should be able to do something about it.... but for most of us there is nothing we can do but just try to get through this journey as quickly as poss with as little hassle as we can... so that we can get on with our new lives...

All the legal statements and processes are not going to help you if you are stood at the POE and they are about to deny you entry.... maybe after the fact you can do something about it but would you really want your SO to have to go through that? I know I would not...

Kezzie

Edited October 19, 2006 by Kezzie

[am1996 0]

In a perfect world everyone would do their job acording to the law and would follow procedure exactly.... but we do not live in a perfect world... everyone including CBP officers and USCIS staff have their own interpitation of the law and how they do their job.... we as the users of their services are very much subject to how they are feeling (bad day) how they see themselves within their jobs and all outside influences that make them who they are....

Us as immigrants are not in a position to tell them that we know the law and their interpitation is not correct... we turn up at the POE or USCIS meeting and hope to get out the otherside with as little hassle as we can... If they are having a bad day or they take a dislike to you there is very little we can do... this is especially true at POE because if this happens you can find yourself denied entry and on the first flight back from where you came.... you at that point are in no position to argue the law or the procedure...

You are absolutely correct about all of the above and this is the same point that I and many others have already made in this thread. No offense, but this is all pretty obvious and I think that we are all quite capable of realizing that in the event the CBP or the USCIS misinterprets or completely disregards the law, your options will be quite limited.

The question that's been posed, however, is what the law is and whether the OP's contemplated course of action would run afoul of it. Once people know what the law is and are also aware of the practical realities of the CBP and/or USCIS misunderstanding or disregarding it, then they are in the appropriate position to double check the accuracy of the information in this thread, evaluate their own risks and make their own independent decisions about the best course of action.

[zauberblume 0]

I can't really find the answer to my question posted above.

Aside from actually showing the POE officer and the AOS adjudicator photos of your non-legal wedding ceremony or telling them about it, then how would these officials know about the ceremony unless they directly ask?

No one is saying that there isn't a risk. In fact, there is one. But we're also trying to point out the other side of the matter, which makes it quite clear that the risk may be worth taking for those who don't get all loquacious when "authority" appears.

[Carol&Marc 0]

In a perfect world everyone would do their job acording to the law and would follow procedure exactly.... but we do not live in a perfect world... everyone including CBP officers and USCIS staff have their own interpitation of the law and how they do their job.... we as the users of their services are very much subject to how they are feeling (bad day) how they see themselves within their jobs and all outside influences that make them who they are....

Us as immigrants are not in a position to tell them that we know the law and their interpitation is not correct... we turn up at the POE or USCIS meeting and hope to get out the otherside with as little hassle as we can... If they are having a bad day or they take a dislike to you there is very little we can do... this is especially true at POE because if this happens you can find yourself denied entry and on the first flight back from where you came.... you at that point are in no position to argue the law or the procedure...

I think what people here have been trying to say is why have something you feel the need to hide or not mention at POE or AOS interview when there is other ways to achieve the same result....

We all know that if you read the law for immigration it tells you one thing but in practice that is not always what happens in real life.... yes that is wrong and yes it should not happen and yes you should be able to do something about it.... but for most of us there is nothing we can do but just try to get through this journey as quickly as poss with as little hassle as we can... so that we can get on with our new lives...

All the legal statements and processes are not going to help you if you are stood at the POE and they are about to deny you entry.... maybe after the fact you can do something about it but would you really want your SO to have to go through that? I know I would not...

Kezzie

This is the reality of the issue, Carol was questioned quite vigourously, she in no means is perfect in english,along with the nevousness that comes with the intimidating attitude of the POE officers at entry! I could not imagine her starting to quote law to them,Its totally unrealistic! The POE officers carry GODLIKE POWERS when it comes to ENTRY if you start an ARGUEMENT with them its just going to make it worse! why dont people understand that.

Edited October 19, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[am1996 0]

The commentary you've offered has been focused on how a non-legally binding religious ceremony would not compromise the legal restrictions that the K1 visa carries. I'd be interested in knowing if your impression would be any different, say, in the case of a couple that had applied for a K1, and resided overseas together for some time, in a country where common-law marriage or putative marriage arrangements exist?

Yes, my impressions would be quite different if a situation was as you describe it above. Is this just an intellectual question or a practical one? If it's the former, I'd prefer to discuss it over PM's so we do not end up confusing people here. If it's the latter, then we should probably start a new thread since the answer would be quite complex.

Just very briefly, the mere existence of the latter in people's home countries can dramatically change the analysis and the considerations that have been articulated in this thread. This is one of the reasons that I've been telling people that their specific situations are all different and that they should, therefore, independently check all the information in this thread and make their own independent decisions about the most appropriate course of action for them.

[am1996 0]

This is the reality of the issue, Carol was questioned quite vigourously, she in no means is perfect in english,along with the nevousness that comes with the intimidating attitude of the POE officers at entry! I could not imagine her starting to quote law to them,Its totally unrealistic! The POE officers carry GODLIKE POWERS when it comes to ENTRY if you start an ARGUEMENT with them its just going to make it worse! why dont people understand that.

Your post illustrates just one of the reasons that people are told to make up their own minds about the proper course of action for them. Should problems arise, confident, well informed, charismatic, articulate people who speak English fluently will generally be in a better position to explain their reasoning to the CBP without offending anybody or seeming confrontational. On the other hand, people who are easily intimidated by government officials, don't speak English well, tend to get loud, confrontational, offensive and obnoxious are much more likely to encounter significant problems at the border. Knowing that you are legally entitled to something is not the same as nicely explaining it to a government official who is questioning you and getting that official to side with you.

This forum is not in the position to assess each person's individual situation and personality and to tell people what to do. All we can do is provide objectively accurate and factual information and then have people make up their own minds about the best course of action for them.

[diadromous mermaid 36]

The commentary you've offered has been focused on how a non-legally binding religious ceremony would not compromise the legal restrictions that the K1 visa carries. I'd be interested in knowing if your impression would be any different, say, in the case of a couple that had applied for a K1, and resided overseas together for some time, in a country where common-law marriage or putative marriage arrangements exist?

Yes, my impressions would be quite different if a situation was as you describe it above. Is this just an intellectual question or a practical one? If it's the former, I'd prefer to discuss it over PM's so we do not end up confusing people here. If it's the latter, then we should probably start a new thread since the answer would be quite complex.

Just very briefly, the mere existence of the latter in people's home countries can dramatically change the analysis and the considerations that have been articulated in this thread. This is one of the reasons that I've been telling people that their specific situations are all different and that they should, therefore, independently check all the information in this thread and make their own independent decisions about the most appropriate course of action for them.

Well, it's a bit of a mixture of both intellectual and practical, I believe . But should it take this discourse off course, I'd be more than happy to continue this in PM, if you wish.

After following this discussion for a while, it made me think. I'm just wondering about implications, broad implications, if you will, of a layperson *considering* whether his/her marriage is legal or not. We've been involved in discussing that a religious ceremony, absent the certificate and registry part of the normal legal marriage process, is perceived in many places as simply a celebration, blessing, and not a legal union (though I suspect there are places in the world that this may not be the case. India comes to my mind, for example, if I'm not mistaken) and as such it might not violate the terms of entry under a K1 visa. I brought up the notion of putative spouse arrangements or common-law, because neither really involve solemnising, or registering (although there is to be some sort of agreement between parties, but it doesn't have to even be in written form) and yet both are considered marriage. I wonder if it is entirely possible that a US citizen and an alien entering on a K1 might have engaged in behaviour that could be a legal marriage, and the alien or US citizen doesn't know it.

[Carol&Marc 0]

This is the reality of the issue, Carol was questioned quite vigourously, she in no means is perfect in english,along with the nevousness that comes with the intimidating attitude of the POE officers at entry! I could not imagine her starting to quote law to them,Its totally unrealistic! The POE officers carry GODLIKE POWERS when it comes to ENTRY if you start an ARGUEMENT with them its just going to make it worse! why dont people understand that.

Your post illustrates just one of the reasons that people are told to make up their own minds about the proper course of action for them. Should problems arise, confident, well informed, charismatic, articulate people who speak English fluently will generally be in a better position to explain their reasoning to the CBP without offending anybody or seeming confrontational. On the other hand, people who are easily intimidated by government officials, don't speak English well, tend to get loud, confrontational, offensive and obnoxious are much more likely to encounter significant problems at the border. Knowing that you are legally entitled to something is not the same as nicely explaining it to a government official who is questioning you and getting that official to side with you.

This forum is not in the position to assess each person's individual situation and personality and to tell people what to do. All we can do is provide objectively accurate and factual information and then have people make up their own minds about the best course of action for them.

Very good articulation! wish I would have said it!

[zyggy 9]

The commentary you've offered has been focused on how a non-legally binding religious ceremony would not compromise the legal restrictions that the K1 visa carries. I'd be interested in knowing if your impression would be any different, say, in the case of a couple that had applied for a K1, and resided overseas together for some time, in a country where common-law marriage or putative marriage arrangements exist?

Yes, my impressions would be quite different if a situation was as you describe it above. Is this just an intellectual question or a practical one? If it's the former, I'd prefer to discuss it over PM's so we do not end up confusing people here. If it's the latter, then we should probably start a new thread since the answer would be quite complex.

Just very briefly, the mere existence of the latter in people's home countries can dramatically change the analysis and the considerations that have been articulated in this thread. This is one of the reasons that I've been telling people that their specific situations are all different and that they should, therefore, independently check all the information in this thread and make their own independent decisions about the most appropriate course of action for them.

Well, it's a bit of a mixture of both intellectual and practical, I believe . But should it take this discourse off course, I'd be more than happy to continue this in PM, if you wish.

After following this discussion for a while, it made me think. I'm just wondering about implications, broad implications, if you will, of a layperson *considering* whether his/her marriage is legal or not. We've been involved in discussing that a religious ceremony, absent the certificate and registry part of the normal legal marriage process, is perceived in many places as simply a celebration, blessing, and not a legal union (though I suspect there are places in the world that this may not be the case. India comes to my mind, for example, if I'm not mistaken) and as such it might not violate the terms of entry under a K1 visa. I brought up the notion of putative spouse arrangements or common-law, because neither really involve solemnising, or registering (although there is to be some sort of agreement between parties, but it doesn't have to even be in written form) and yet both are considered marriage. I wonder if it is entirely possible that a US citizen and an alien entering on a K1 might have engaged in behaviour that could be a legal marriage, and the alien or US citizen doesn't know it.

True...

I know of at least one jurisdiction where this is the case... In Ontario, Canada, it only takes 6 months of co-habitation to establish a common law marriage... not long at all.. Also in Ontario, Canada, a marriage license is not required, and therefore no registration is required to establish a legal marriage, if it is the first marriage for each of the parties.. this was one situation where I had to send the individuals back home... they didn't think they were married with only a religious ceremony, but under Canadian law they were and back home they went to get a CR-1 visa (K-3's weren't available yet).

[SirLancelot 1]

True...

I know of at least one jurisdiction where this is the case... In Ontario, Canada, it only takes 6 months of co-habitation to establish a common law marriage... not long at all.. Also in Ontario, Canada, a marriage license is not required, and therefore no registration is required to establish a legal marriage, if it is the first marriage for each of the parties.. this was one situation where I had to send the individuals back home... they didn't think they were married with only a religious ceremony, but under Canadian law they were and back home they went to get a CR-1 visa (K-3's weren't available yet).

zyggy, are you disclosing to us that you're a POE border agent?

[Kez/JWolf 6]

He told us a long long time ago the he is an ex CBP....

Kezzie

[SirLancelot 1]

He told us a long long time ago the he is an ex CBP....

Kezzie

Interesting... He didn't disclose this fact in this thread. I'm sure I'm not the only one who didn't know this little bit of knowledge. That would certainly change things a bit. I'm more apt to take into account of what he says about his experiences while working as a CBP.

Still, the law is pretty clear on this. But there will forever be over-zealous officers in every force in every corner of the world. That's just reality.

A black person driving through rural Mississippi during the wee hours of the night may indeed be pulled over and harrassed by the local hickville police/sheriff--that is reality--but does that mean we should advise all black people to not drive at night time in rural areas of the South? I should hope not. The law is clearly on the side of the black person, but indeed he or she may still be harrassed.

I would never urge people to kow-tow to over-zealous officers if indeed the law is clearly on the side of the people.