K1 and immediate family

[Andy 2]

I think we need to stay on the topic of the question being asked here, rather than stray off into illegal alien territory - there are plenty of places to discuss those issues, whichever side of the fence you are on!

ON EDIT: Thanks Captain!

Edited April 4, 2007 by Andy

[Andy 2]

The question being asked here is a perfectly valid one, and it actually affects quite a few potential K-1 and spousal visa cases.

The problem is that as has been pointed out, there are occasions where a beneficiary is asked to identify relatives present in the US, thus the relatives in this instance DO play a part. One could simply not list them, which is a dangerous proposition since their presence in the US can be seen to have a bearing on the validity of the visa application, or declare them, in which case they may be made vulnerable to deportation.

If the former option is chosen, and there is any reason by which the consular officer believes there ARE in fact relatives present, or discovers it to be so, the fiancee could well find herself denied a visa on the grounds that a material factor had been withheld. At the least it would be likely the case would go into review pending investigation of the family members. If the latter and the family are declared as required, assuming the fiancee herself has no reason to be ineligible (ie, overstays or criminal record etc as normal), and that all other details are as briefly described, the existence of family in illegal status won't prevent the visa being approved. There MAY be questions raised as to intent of course, that with family present, even if unlawfully, is the fiancee more intent on joining them than being married, but that matter can be overcome with good evidential substance showing there is a valid, ongoing and genuine relationship.

[JoeMama 0]

That would really bite being denied based on the actions of the relatives. It seems like it all boils down to that old saying, "You are judged by the company you keep". In this case, the "company" being the family who are here illegally.

To the OP: I hope everything can work out for you somehow. If your fiancee is asked by the government where the relatives are, etc., will she give up their whereabouts and visa status to be with you? Just something to think about.

[Andy 2]

That would really bite being denied based on the actions of the relatives. It seems like it all boils down to that old saying, "You are judged by the company you keep".

Well, no. If the fiancee lists the relatives on the form and is open about their situation, they don't have any impact on the K-1 visa other than reinforcing the need for the couple to prove they have a real relationship. It may raise the bar on what evidence is needed by a small degree, but otherwise it's not an issue, just a factor to be aware of.

[meauxna 15]

IMO, this is one of those famous 'not straightforward' cases that should be discussed, in private, with an immigration attorney, best one that does a lot of work with the home country.

Whether or not they retain an attorney for the whole case is another matter, but I can't see the OP being well served by our speculation.

(FTR, other similar posted cases have not ever come back to report fall-out on the family members in the US, but that is hardly a ringing endorsement for running into a Consular appointment unprepared)

[Boiler 44,855]

Agree, except I have never heard of any relative being deported as a result.

I have seen Visa's refused for lying on the application.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Boiler

[Andy 2]

IMO, this is one of those famous 'not straightforward' cases that should be discussed, in private, with an immigration attorney....

I'm curious as to why you would think this is more problematic to discuss here than a range of other issues which have similarly difficult implications and potential complications that are often not stated.

There are always good reasons to seek specialist, qualified, legal advice when dealing with any aspect of this system - after all, the slightest mistake could affect the rest of one's life. However, on the face of it - meaning, based on the sparse details actually posted rather than assumptions about what isn't said - the implication of having relatives unlawfully present in the US is as broadly outlined. If one were to examine, for example, the criteria for finding a person ineligible, one would not find any mention of a history of unlawful presence of family or friends, and aside from doubts over the authenticity of the relationship, the only basis on which a visa can be denied is on a specific ground of ineligibility.

[Yodrak 7]

Andy,

I don't think you're re-statement of what meauxna wrote is accurate. As you point out, the OP presented sparse details. For the OP to get good advise specific to his situation he needs to have the full details reviewed by someone who can identify which of those details, if any, might be a problem.

Sure, we can have a general discussion of the issues here on VJ, but I believe that for the OP to get good guidance that will be relevant to his specific situation is beyond us. I think that is what meauxna believes also.

Yodrak

IMO, this is one of those famous 'not straightforward' cases that should be discussed, in private, with an immigration attorney....

I'm curious as to why you would think this is more problematic to discuss here than a range of other issues which have similarly difficult implications and potential complications that are often not stated.

There are always good reasons to seek specialist, qualified, legal advice when dealing with any aspect of this system - after all, the slightest mistake could affect the rest of one's life. However, on the face of it - meaning, based on the sparse details actually posted rather than assumptions about what isn't said - the implication of having relatives unlawfully present in the US is as broadly outlined. If one were to examine, for example, the criteria for finding a person ineligible, one would not find any mention of a history of unlawful presence of family or friends, and aside from doubts over the authenticity of the relationship, the only basis on which a visa can be denied is on a specific ground of ineligibility.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Yodrak

[TimsDaisy 0]

[Andy 2]

I don't think you're re-statement of what meauxna wrote is accurate. As you point out, the OP presented sparse details. For the OP to get good advise specific to his situation he needs to have the full details reviewed by someone who can identify which of those details, if any, might be a problem.

Sure, we can have a general discussion of the issues here on VJ, but I believe that for the OP to get good guidance that will be relevant to his specific situation is beyond us. I think that is what meauxna believes also.

I think you'll find that in my response to the OP, I gave exactly that 'general discussion' which I feel to be of usefulness in the sense that the OP has some basis on which to consider the relevance of issues that are specific to his case, whether known to us or not, and which also addresses the broad issue for the benefit of other readers, and may help serve to pinpoint the generalities in a way that wasn't achieved previously in the thread.

I'm not personally much concerned at whether you consider my 're-statement' of what meauxna said is accurate or not, and I certainly wasn't suggesting an attorney consultation was inappropriate. I'm curious why this issue would be seen as any more complex than many others where discussion actively takes place unchecked and where the same rules of adjudication for the visa exist. It might readily be said that almost any question here contains sufficiently difficult potential issues that it ought best be referred to an attorney, particularly since it's entirely likely that salient details are not included in the question because the poster may not be aware of the significance of some facet of the case.

[Yodrak 7]

Andy,

I agree. any posters do not present the important details if for no other reason than they have no idea what details may turn out to be important. And my sense is that most VJers don't want to hear about having a discussion of the details with an immigration attorney - some even after a consular officer has hit them upside the head with a 2x4 by refusing their visa application.

Yodrak

.... It might readily be said that almost any question here contains sufficiently difficult potential issues that it ought best be referred to an attorney, particularly since it's entirely likely that salient details are not included in the question because the poster may not be aware of the significance of some facet of the case.

[Boiler 44,855]

I will go with Andy,

Question

My girlfriend has relatives here in the US that are on expired tourist visas.

They are actually immediate family that came on tourist visas a couple of years ago, and never went back.

They are Colombian and I am American. Interestingly enough, this may sound like a red flag,

but given all that I know about her, I am completely comfortable with it. (Except of course the legalities)

Anyway, would this affect a K1 for us? (or K3)

Answer

No

Does the OP have other issues, no idea and anyway if he has all he has to do is post.

There must be some Consulates where not having relatives illegally present in the US would be unusual.

[pushbrk 12,569]

The poster came on with a real question, and he's getting beat up for his girlfriend family's history of illegals. He can't control them, or tell them to get out. He's in love with his girlfriend, and he can't change her families position.

I dont recall them asking anywhere in the K1 process about beneficiary families status/history. So unless they specifically ask about where her family is etc, you should be safe.

If the Embassy or Consulate in Columbia uses a GIV-24 or similar family compostition sheet, then his girlfriend will be required to provide the names and addresses of all her immediate family. This form is part of packet 4.

[Andy 2]

I agree. any posters do not present the important details if for no other reason than they have no idea what details may turn out to be important. And my sense is that most VJers don't want to hear about having a discussion of the details with an immigration attorney - some even after a consular officer has hit them upside the head with a 2x4 by refusing their visa application.

I guess my point is that there are only two ways of fairly and 'properly' handling the sort of question we get here (meaning VJ as a whole, not just the K-1 area). We can either make the assumption that there are details not spoken and in the light of our knowledge that even small details can be wholly significant in an otherwise apparently simple case, almost inevitably recommend the poster seek professional help (which has been suggested before of course), OR take the poster at face value and address the issue as specifically described in as far as it can reasonably be addressed in that way.

The question being asked in this thread, for example, is actually a very simple and generic one, not much related to the specifics other than the fiancee's relatives, unlawfully present. So it seems to me quite reasonable to address that broad question with the broadest of answers to underpin the basic principles upon which such a situation is adjudicated. It may not be entirely wise to make the assumption that over and above that, the OP is likely sensible enough to realize that more detail responses addressing his specifics would at least require more detailed information to be given, let alone that since there are relatives unlawfully in the US that a good immigration lawyer would be a wise investment, but I do assume that when I consider the replies I provide. Particularly since, as we all know, it can help greatly when engaging in consultation with an attorney, to have at least a grounding in the issues on which to hold that conversation and to understand and evaluate the advice then given.

[JoeMama 0]

If the Embassy or Consulate in Columbia uses a GIV-24 or similar family compostition sheet, then his girlfriend will be required to provide the names and addresses of all her immediate family. This form is part of packet 4.

I had a feeling there had to be something like that somewhere along the way.