Screwed by association? Toss the K-1 and now what?

[Juliet and Steve 93]

How nice, K-1 approved. So on to readying new documents.

Oops... question arises: Do you have any relatives in America?

Gee...gosh, we do a sister (half-sister) who travels back and forth from RP (Philippines) to America. But when queried as to what visa she has we get a blank stare. So something stinks here.

Now I find that having a sister here in America is grounds for denial of the K-1?

Gosh...when someone gets a speeding ticket do we haul brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers into Court as being guilty by association?

We do everything by the book--honest in all things, at all times and now, what I am hearing is--we're screwed and will be denied.

How many millions of illegals do we have in America and we welcome them regardless of their felony record and here, simply because a relative is here legally or illegally--our K1 will be denied?

I suppose it makes sense, Obama gives amnesty to a few million and guess what--he's got a few million votes.

Any suggestions for plan B?

In two words--------------this sucks.

[Spice1473 10]

What?????? You got denied a k1 becausebof a family member being here illegally?????? Are you kidding me???? That could go for most of us!!!

[himher 634]

How nice, K-1 approved. So on to readying new documents.

Oops... question arises: Do you have any relatives in America?

Gee...gosh, we do a sister (half-sister) who travels back and forth from RP (Philippines) to America. But when queried as to what visa she has we get a blank stare. So something stinks here.

Now I find that having a sister here in America is grounds for denial of the K-1?

Gosh...when someone gets a speeding ticket do we haul brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers into Court as being guilty by association?

We do everything by the book--honest in all things, at all times and now, what I am hearing is--we're screwed and will be denied.

How many millions of illegals do we have in America and we welcome them regardless of their felony record and here, simply because a relative is here legally or illegally--our K1 will be denied?

I suppose it makes sense, Obama gives amnesty to a few million and guess what--he's got a few million votes.

Any suggestions for plan B?

In two words--------------this sucks.

Plan B: When denied a K1 visa get married and apply for an immigrant visa.

[Tahoma 2,292]

How nice, K-1 approved. So on to readying new documents.

Oops... question arises: Do you have any relatives in America?

Gee...gosh, we do a sister (half-sister) who travels back and forth from RP (Philippines) to America. But when queried as to what visa she has we get a blank stare. So something stinks here.

Now I find that having a sister here in America is grounds for denial of the K-1?

Gosh...when someone gets a speeding ticket do we haul brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers into Court as being guilty by association?

We do everything by the book--honest in all things, at all times and now, what I am hearing is--we're screwed and will be denied.

How many millions of illegals do we have in America and we welcome them regardless of their felony record and here, simply because a relative is here legally or illegally--our K1 will be denied?

I suppose it makes sense, Obama gives amnesty to a few million and guess what--he's got a few million votes.

Any suggestions for plan B?

In two words--------------this sucks.

You don't need a Plan B.

But you do need to understand that it wasn't your K-1 which was approved. It was your I-129F.

How about providing some links to people who were denied a K-1 visa at the U.S. Embassy Manila because their relative was TNT.

While you're at it, why don't you provide some links which show the warm welcome being given to all the undocumented felons in the U.S.

And maybe you wouldn't mind explaining how a path to citizenship (and the right to vote) which would take more than 15 years would increase the vote count of someone who has already had his final election.

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

How could you get an approved K-1 and then be worried your K-1 will be denied? I assume you mean your I-129F petition was approved, which is no way a K-1 visa.

Having family in the US is not an automatic denial of a K-1. The CO will be looking at the overall situation of your fiancee's case. If there is sufficient evidence of your bona fide relationship, then having a family member in the US, legally or illegally should not weigh heavily into their decision at all.

Having family in the US is more about trying to see if the foreign fiance(e) is only trying to gain entry to the US and get a green card. It happens. You read cases where someone states their wife got her green card and took off to live with her sister. Sometimes they leave the USC before the green card is even received. So you see, the question regarding family in the US is not really about making the person applying for a K-1 guilty of the crimes of their family members. It just gives a larger overall picture of the entire situation. If your relationship is real, then there is no reason to deny the K-1.

Also, I was not aware that Obama could run again, or that a US president is the one that passes bills and makes the laws. Interesting.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Jay-Kay

[Hank_ 9,174]

How nice, K-1 approved. So on to readying new documents.

Oops... question arises: Do you have any relatives in America?

Gee...gosh, we do a sister (half-sister) who travels back and forth from RP (Philippines) to America. But when queried as to what visa she has we get a blank stare. So something stinks here.

Now I find that having a sister here in America is grounds for denial of the K-1?

Gosh...when someone gets a speeding ticket do we haul brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers into Court as being guilty by association?

We do everything by the book--honest in all things, at all times and now, what I am hearing is--we're screwed and will be denied.

How many millions of illegals do we have in America and we welcome them regardless of their felony record and here, simply because a relative is here legally or illegally--our K1 will be denied?

I suppose it makes sense, Obama gives amnesty to a few million and guess what--he's got a few million votes.

Any suggestions for plan B?

In two words--------------this sucks.

I see by your timeline your petition was recently approved. So when did you get denied?

If you have a sister (or half-sister) traveling back and forth between the Philippines and the USA, but you don't know what type of visa she has that doesn't mean anything. If you don't know what type of visa she is using for entry into the USA simple put UNKNOWN in the form.

My wife has a cousin who travels to the USA often as he works on a cruise ship, but I doubt my wife has a clue as to what visa he uses. Heck now that I think about it, she did not mention him on the forms.... oops! Or not....

What your sister is doing has little, if anything, to do with what you are doing.

Follow the instructions letter from the embassy and you should be just fine.

Why not pop down to the Philippine forum and say "Hi" ... lots of good folks to help you with questions at this stage of the process.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Hank_

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Misplaced rage ftw.

[Juliet and Steve 93]

Fascinating.

I'll prefaces this by commenting that my concern was brought about by two people who told me that if we had a relative in the US, it would delay or cause a denial on the K1. I now realize that the question about relatives really does not point to K-1 applicants at all because immigrants through the K-1 have a legitimate and viable path to citizenship. It appears that the question relates more to working, visiting or educational visas where once the visa period has run its course a person might be inclined to stay here illegally and having relatives might make it easier.

Spice1473--I apologize for causing you concern and hope that the above paragraph helps.

HimHer: Thank you. I like your answer.

Hank_ Great answer--succinct and to the point. Bravo.

Harpa Timsah: You answered "misplaced rage ftw." I haven't a clue as to what you mean but congratulations on your 9,847th post. Perhaps you meant "misplaced concern?"

I was upset when I posted that post, though I'm no longer upset about the reason for the post, now I'm a bit upset at some of the responses. What fascinates me is my perception that once Tahoma got his digs (or perhaps what are in my perception "digs") in, responses turned oddly humiliating. It's so easy to cut a person up on the internet, to call him/her a dolt, by inference, oh--never by direct assault, for that might not be allowed.

Tahoma, what a great example of passive-aggressive put-down! (Or maybe it's just my silly perception--I'll let the readers decide) You're a master. I suppose that I should be thoroughly embarrassed and go stand in corner but I don't bruise that easily. Sorry about that.

Indeed Tahoma, it's very common that people, especially those here who are new'ish get a bit mixed up. Of course it was the I-129F that was approved--the K-1 approval comes from the consulate. But why not simply say that? That would be helpful.

Tahoma your answered: " How about providing some links to people who were denied a K-1 visa at the U.S. Embassy Manila because their relative was TNT."

Why not say, as I now understand, having researched it something useful like: "The status of your relative won't matter." You are answering as the expert--why not be the expert? Why put someone against the wall, or why not just come out and end your sentence with the word "fool." What possible positive effect can that sentence have? Strange.

Sorry Tahoma, but our relatives are not tri-nitro-toluene (also known as dynamite or TNT, a type of high explosive). It would be helpful for those of us who don't know everything just that TNT means--why not clarify acronyms?

Your next sentence: " While you're at it, why don't you provide some links which show the warm welcome being given to all the undocumented felons in the U.S." might as well end with the word "fool," also. This appears to be a dig--a jibe. I suppose you'll say: "well I didn't intend to make you feel/look like the fool" and I suppose if we were face to face I'd simply say: "really?" Gray zone bullying--that is my perception.

Yet I won't back down from what I perceive (I'll let the reader decide whether or not that is a dig) from an assaultive jibe--so I'll answer it. Perhaps nobody else will perceive it as assaultive, that's just fine with me.

Tahoma--you are correct in your veiled and strange comment: those who sneak into the US are not felons at all--the crime is merely a misdemeanor. Or maybe, you as well as I did not know this, in which case I'll apologize for this one. But then here at VJ are all of us--each spending thousands of dollars and each of us staying completely within the law--and then there are the millions who break the law (ok, they aren't felons) and we pretty much ignore them. Is that not equivalent to a warm welcome?

Tahoma you ask for a link so here's one: http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs

Let's look at just a few states where illegal immigrants (no, I shan't say the oh so politically correct: "undocumented persons") are now occupying jobs that would otherwise be available to the multitude of unemployed American citizens: California: 1,887,695; Texas: 1,296,670, the list goes on and even in my unimportant state of New Hampshire there are an estimated 10,000+ petty criminals holding jobs illegally. (I can't call them felons but I can call them criminals).

We're talking millions and millions of jobs held by criminals. If that is not a welcome--what is? Again, I'll let each reader decide if we really take illegal immigrants seriously or if, in reality, we opt for a sort of subdued-clandestine welcome. Remember--illegal immigrants work for less money, and this equates to profit. The fact that we have many millions of illegal immigrants working and taking jobs in America without any serious effort to correct the situation simply points to the fact that for many--the situation is profitable. It may not be a "warm" welcome but it certainly seems a welcome to me.

And Tahoma instead of saying; " And maybe you wouldn't mind explaining how a path to citizenship (and the right to vote) which would take more than 15 years would increase the vote count of someone who has already had his final election." Why not enlighten us that the 22nd amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit of two terms on Presidency? Now that would be useful and I would have saved the time of trying to figure out "why" it was Obama's last term. But then maybe Michelle will become our next president? (sorry, the devil made me say that!).

Again, I'd much rather you explain your point of view, as an expert who knows Please explain the process for I do not understand the 15 years. My only point of reference was the person who swept out my clinic at General Motors in 2008. Her name was Rosalina--she was from Honduras and walked across the border into Texas. She told me that the very next year (2009) she was eligible for US citizenship and only had to take some test, though she did comment that America wasn't quite what she expected and her dad's farm in Honduras was looking better than her multiple jobs here in America--and I'm not sure if she became a citizen or went back to Honduras. If the current programs take 15 years I'll stand corrected.

Tahoma, perhaps it was not your intent to act as a bully--but that was the effect. You caused me embarrassment. If it was not your intent, perhaps you might want to consider that you do know a lot here, and the way that you answer can be helpful, or hurtful--your choice. Your answers do affect people here--especially newbies and whether intentionally or unintentionally you made me out to be the fool some other person who doesn't want to me made fun of might think twice before posting.

Jay-Kay, excellent post though I wonder the wording in your last sentence: " ...or that a US president is the one that passes bills and makes the laws...."

Indeed, bills (and laws) are supposed to be passed by Congress not by the President--but consider the fact that Obama has issued plenty of Executive Orders. Executive Orders can be and are used as a means to circumvent the normal political process and Mr Obama certainly uses them.

On January 2, 2013 Mr Obama initiated an Executive Order whose new policy aims to keep undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens united with their families.

Six months prior Mr Obama created a policy that grants temporary visas to undocumented youth.

Another January 2nd Executive Order which took effect March 4th: " allows certain undocumented immigrants to apply for a visa in the United States and return to their home country for only a brief time—only a week in some cases—to obtain immigration documents. In order to qualify, applicants must prove that being away from a U.S.-citizen spouse, child, or parent would create "extreme hardship."

Jay-Kay I have no interest in debating the worth of these Executive Orders but it does seem to me that though bills and laws are not supposed to be passed solely by the President--that we have a President that essentially is doing just that. (Though I'll admit it's not new) Again whether appropriate or not is not an issue that I'll debate, rather I just wanted to point out that policy changes that are as effectual as laws can be done and are done by the President.

[KayDeeCee 4,893]

Yes, I know about Executive Orders having to do with immigration that Obama has signed. Yes, President Obama certainly uses Executive Orders, as did almost every other president. You have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland to find a president that used less than Obama though, so it is not as if he uses them in great numbers compared to the rest of the presidents before him. Even if he was responsible for the laws Congress makes and passes, votes would not be an incentive since he cannot run for office again.

Anyway, no debates on the immigration bill or Obama's EOs needed or appropriate for this forum. Glad your concerns have been laid to rest and you know there will not be an automatic denial of a K-1 if someone has a relative in the US. That is the important thing in this thread.