K-1 after removal

[Anitafeliz 1,133]

1) We purchased a one way ticket.

2) It was acceptable last time and he came.

3)This time they decided to interrogate him and when they do that, CBP can basically invade his privacy.

1) He needed roundtrip.

2) It depends on the officer their mood ect. Not all officers see same warning signals.

3) WHAT PRIVACY

COMING to this country is a priviliage not a right.

Officer acted accordingly.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Anitafeliz

[CapitalQ 11]

TO CLARIFY...

You are mistaken. Theres an imbra waiver that must be submitted if two k1 are approved in less then two years.

http://www.marriagevisaattorney.com/k1-fiance-visa-waiver-multiple-filings/

Thanks for the clarification, but it still does not apply to my case. My first two petitions were 16 years apart and this one is 7 years from the last one.

And to clarify what IMBRA stands for:

International

Marriage

Broker

Regulation

Act

The act was initially set up to stop the abuse of mail order brides and now helps to regulate businesses who charge fees for matchmaking services between US residents/citizens/officials/etc and foreigners.

[Anitafeliz 1,133]

Thanks for the clarification, but it still does not apply to my case. My first two petitions were 16 years apart and this one is 7 years from the last one.

And to clarify what IMBRA stands for:

International

Marriage

Broker

Regulation

Act

The act was initially set up to stop the abuse of mail order brides and now helps to regulate businesses who charge fees for matchmaking services between US residents/citizens/officials/etc and foreigners.

You may need one regardless because you look like you are abusing the system as stated in the article it may be requiered.

This also will depend of officed adjudicating your petition.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Anitafeliz

[CapitalQ 11]

1) He needed roundway.

2) It depends on the officer their mood ect. Not all officers see same warning signals.

3) WHAT PRIVACY

COMING to this country is a priviliage not a right.

Officer acted accordingly.

That's your opinion and NO the officers did not act accordingly...

Yes, I know it depends on the officers mood and "acting accordingly" doesn't give a person a right to be any kind of way just because they're having a bad day. Does you having a bad day give you a right to treat people poorly?

Coming to this country is a privilege not a right....no kidding! It's also a privilege for US residents to travel to other people's countries. It doesn't permit the treatment of humans as inhumane....unless, of course, you have varying belief on who deserves respect and who doesn't...

The whole situation was a human rights violation which is precisely why the ACLU chapters all over this country work diligently to assist victims of such situations and acts.

[Boiler 46,111]

That's your opinion and NO the officers did not act accordingly...

Yes, I know it depends on the officers mood and "acting accordingly" doesn't give a person a right to be any kind of way just because they're having a bad day. Does you having a bad day give you a right to treat people poorly?

Coming to this country is a privilege not a right....no kidding! It's also a privilege for US residents to travel to other people's countries. It doesn't permit the treatment of humans as inhumane....unless, of course, you have varying belief on who deserves respect and who doesn't...

The whole situation was a human rights violation which is precisely why the ACLU chapters all over this country work diligently to assist victims of such situations and acts.

I take it you are working with the ACLU to remedy this situation?

[Meg&Andrew 297]

I do not agree that the officer acted accordingly. Yes he should have been turned around and sent home for possible immigration intent, but not detained for days. If this was my husband, I would have been furious. As we see time and time again in the US, people in positions of power sometimes seem to get on a power trip, and end up abusing their power. Not all people are this way, but it does happen. It's easy to say that the officer acted accordingly when you have your husband sitting next to you, but if you didn't and this happened to your spouse would you feel the same way? He didn't break any laws, he didn't plan on staying in the US. They had the right to send him home, but why the need to detain him? We've saw many people on here turned around at POE for having a spouse or significant other in the US, but not detained.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Meg&Andrew

[kris&me 572]

not trying to judge but even if both spouses were USC 2 divorces are held up to high scrunity by any CO and embassy

especially the short duration of these marriages

you can google this question on the internet and see the answers you come up with

[Anitafeliz 1,133]

I dont think he should have been detained but yes turned away.

I am happy my husbands with me but i brought him here the correct way.

I do not agree that the officer acted accordingly. Yes he should have been turned around and sent home for possible immigration intent, but not detained for days. If this was my husband, I would have been furious. As we see time and time again in the US, people in positions of power sometimes seem to get on a power trip, and end up abusing their power. Not all people are this way, but it does happen. It's easy to say that the officer acted accordingly when you have your husband sitting next to you, but if you didn't and this happened to your spouse would you feel the same way? He didn't break any laws, he didn't plan on staying in the US. They had the right to send him home, but why the need to detain him? We've saw many people on here turned around at POE for having a spouse or significant other in the US, but not detained.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Anitafeliz

[Meg&Andrew 297]

I dont think he should have been detained but yes turned away.

I am happy my husbands with me but i brought him here the correct way.

Yes I agree, he should have been turned away. I know what you mean, I don't agree with bringing a spouse here with the intent of him immigrating. That's fraud, and I in no way agree with that. But from the sound of the OP, he wasnt planning on staying in the US.

[Everlast 49]

My fiance and I have been together for over two years and I was in Benin last year. He had a 2-year, multi-entry, tourist visa and spent about two months with me over the summer. He returned within the parameters of his visa and we planned another visit for the holidays. We had a bad family event happen about a month after his departure so he was going to return to support our family. At POE in Chicago, he was deemed "an immigrant on a non-immigrant visa" and actually detained for 4 days before being sent back (and treated SO badly it's disgusting!)....anyway, he ended up being "removed" and now we will have to file a waiver (I think an I-212 but not certain). We thought we had time for a longer engagement, but had no problem moving our plans ahead

Does anyone have experience with this? We filed our K-1 at the Dallas lockbox, it was sent to CSC and today, I received notice that our case was being transferred--not sure where yet. I'm wondering when we should file the waiver. Can we work on it now and send it in or do we have to wait until someone says he needs one? Although, I'm pretty positive he does because his removal said he has a 5-year ban which CBP said was "standard" with any removal.

One more question....This is my 3rd petition. My first was a K-1 in 1993 which ended in divorce 3 1/2 years later. The next was I-130 in 2009, which ended in a long, miserable divorce that took a year to complete and was finalized in 2015. Now I'm filing another K-1. It sounds horrible, but I have traveled and this is the way it is and THIS will be my last! How much grief will I get because of my history?

Lots of questions and I have more brewing....just not all at once...

To detain someone for 4 days is abuse of his inalienable rights, since he's being coming and going. Refer to ACLU asap.

Wish you well in your visa journey!

[Anitafeliz 1,133]

Yes I agree, he should have been turned away. I know what you mean, I don't agree with bringing a spouse here with the intent of him immigrating. That's fraud, and I in no way agree with that. But from the sound of the OP, he wasnt planning on staying in the US.

That only they would know but didnt sound like it,to me either.

What concerns me is..... is there more to this story??

That they detained. Intent alone doesnt seem like a detainable offense.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Anitafeliz

[CapitalQ 11]

I take it you are working with the ACLU to remedy this situation?

No, I'm not actually. We have been doing the work ourselves on the case, but I learned a lot about the ACLU because of this. I contacted my state's chapter, but because it occurred in Illinois, I have to contact the IL chapter. It's been a trying time, but I do certainly intend to pursue this more.

[Anitafeliz 1,133]

Does the UCLA help people from other countries? I wasn't aware.

[san diego 407]

OP. You may not hear answers that you want. I gave you honest answer. You WILL need a waiver for the 3rd I129 to be approved. This should be your first priority.

[CapitalQ 11]

OP. You may not hear answers that you want. I gave you honest answer. You WILL need a waiver for the 3rd I129 to be approved. This should be your first priority.

Again, this is not my third I-129F, it is my second. The first I-129F was filed in 1993. The second petition was for IR/spouse (as I was already married)--that was in 2009. This present one is I-129F.