Will the new travel Ban affect fiance visas also ?

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Having been vetted for a bona fide relationship as fiances by receiving the visa (embassy establishes if bona fide or not and then either issues or refuses
the visa) means that fiances have a bona fide relationship. At this time "bona fide relationship" a la the travel ban means family, student (relationship to school) and employee (relationship to employer/company).

What will go wrong again is the "discretionary power of interpretation" of border patrol who are sometimes clueless.
The Supreme court hopes that after the 90 days actual details will have been worked out.
At this time it may be chaos as usual because no EXACT guidelines have been outlined, only in very general terms.
In general all visa holders with a bona fide relationship (family,school,job and yes fiances) are supposed to be allowed to enter.
 

[DILAW 94]

1 hour ago, useful89 said:

That's your interpretation. Bona fide just means genuine/sincere/not for the purpose of deception. We have to prove that anyway for a K1 visa, as that is a very important part of the process. Not sure why you feel so strongly that being in a relationship with someone and being engaged to them is not a bona fide relationship.

I told you it's my opinion and i might be wrong.  To me a K1 is a relationship but the government gives you 90 days to decide to make it or break it and to me that's why i think it's not a strong or not considered a relative.  But like i said, its my opinion and i an not a lawyer nor know about these immigration laws.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

8 minutes ago, DILAW said:

I told you it's my opinion and i might be wrong.  To me a K1 is a relationship but the government gives you 90 days to decide to make it or break it and to me that's why i think it's not a strong or not considered a relative.  But like i said, its my opinion and i an not a lawyer nor know about these immigration laws.

No. They do not give you 90 days to decide as the show "90 day fiance" would like you to believe.
They give you 90 days to get a wedding together and make sure it is both of your intent to marry not to try and see and decide.
You both did sign an intent to marry not a decide in 90 days.
A K1 has immigrant intent and is considered 'family'.

[DILAW 94]

2 minutes ago, Ebunoluwa said:

No. They do not give you 90 days to decide as the show "90 day fiance" would like you to believe.
They give you 90 days to get a wedding together and make sure it is both of your intent to marry not to try and see and decide.
You both did sign an intent to marry not a decide in 90 days.
A K1 has immigrant intent and is considered 'family'.

Do a finance has rights?  Like for example if you are engaged to a person for a year, can you claim them on your insurance?  If you split, can you or your fiancee take you to court and demand anything?  This is why i don't see a fiancee as a relative.  

You remember the ban 2.0 i guess some called it when the president made some exceptions?  He mentioned spouse, parent, son and daughter.  He didn't include fiancees.  Again, this is my opinion.  You might be right

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

5 minutes ago, DILAW said:

Do a finance has rights?  Like for example if you are engaged to a person for a year, can you claim them on your insurance?  If you split, can you or your fiancee take you to court and demand anything?  This is why i don't see a fiancee as a relative.  

You remember the ban 2.0 i guess some called it when the president made some exceptions?  He mentioned spouse, parent, son and daughter.  He didn't include fiancees.  Again, this is my opinion.  You might be right

Of course I can claim them on my insurance, depends what kind of insurance.
I had insurance with my then fiance as beneficiary.
Yes a fiance can take you to court and file a claim, no one demands anything from a court, you file a complaint or claim.
Whatever you figure a fiance can and can not do in regards to a court or insurance is irrelevant because only immigration
regulations count as to what constitutes family and what does not. The K1 is a horse of it's own color but it does mean a bona fide
relationship to a USC fiance has been established when the visa has been issued, likely not when a beneficiary wants a B2 to visit his fiance.
 

[DILAW 94]

1 minute ago, Ebunoluwa said:

Of course I can claim them on my insurance, depends what kind of insurance.
I had insurance with my then fiance as beneficiary.
Yes a fiance can take you to court and file a claim, no one demands anything from a court, you file a complaint or claim.
Whatever you figure a fiance can and can not do in regards to a court or insurance is irrelevant because only immigration
regulations count as to what constitutes family and what does not. The K1 is a horse of it's own color but it does mean a bona fide
relationship to a USC fiance has been established when the visa has been issued, likely not when a beneficiary wants a B2 to visit his fiance.
 

I didn't know a fiancee gets all these rights just by being engaged.  

But anyways, you guys sounds 100% sure a fiancee is excluded from the ban so ok they are excluded.

Well, i hope come October the Supreme Court doesn't get Trump what he wants which is the fully loaded initial ban which would ban even relatives.  That's what i care about, not this temp order

[toothpicks 38]

6 minutes ago, DILAW said:

I didn't know a fiancee gets all these rights just by being engaged.  

But anyways, you guys sounds 100% sure a fiancee is excluded from the ban so ok they are excluded.

Well, i hope come October the Supreme Court doesn't get Trump what he wants which is the fully loaded initial ban which would ban even relatives.  That's what i care about, not this temp order

I read this article on the Washington Post that indicated that the Supreme Court is allowing these measures of the travel ban to go through temporarily so that Trump's administration will have time and space for the extra security measures and increased vetting, and likely be done by October. Trump did say that they would need 90 days for this vetting, and the Supreme Court is giving him that.

 

By the time SCOTUS reviews the travel ban in full in October, it will be harder for the administration to argue in support of it because they are already supposed to have completed their work. 

[DILAW 94]

6 minutes ago, toothpicks said:

I read this article on the Washington Post that indicated that the Supreme Court is allowing these measures of the travel ban to go through temporarily so that Trump's administration will have time and space for the extra security measures and increased vetting, and likely be done by October. Trump did say that they would need 90 days for this vetting, and the Supreme Court is giving him that.

 

By the time SCOTUS reviews the travel ban in full in October, it will be harder for the administration to argue in support of it because they are already supposed to have completed their work. 

Trump wants the SC to hear the case in October.  Trump is still going after making his initial ban law.

I can't believe the people in the USA especially the racist ones that voted for Trump that he didn't include countries like Egypt, Saudia Arabia, United Arab Emirates which were "responsible" for the 911 attack

[toothpicks 38]

Just now, DILAW said:

Trump wants the SC to hear the case in October.  Trump is still going after making his initial ban law.

I can't believe the people in the USA especially the racist ones that voted for Trump that he didn't include countries like Egypt, Saudia Arabia, United Arab Emirates which were "responsible" for the 911 attack

But Trump's initial ban was always temporary, and he indicated that the ban was so that he would have time to put extra security measures in place. SCOTUS is giving him that time with this declaration, so that Trump's administration will have a harder time arguing for the ban come October.

[DILAW 94]

3 minutes ago, toothpicks said:

But Trump's initial ban was always temporary, and he indicated that the ban was so that he would have time to put extra security measures in place. SCOTUS is giving him that time with this declaration, so that Trump's administration will have a harder time arguing for the ban come October.

Does this mean in 3 months he can complicate the process and make it take double or triple the length?  And what does that mean for the ones that are in the second step out third like nvc or embassy?  No one knows.  I just know he's a racist and he wants everyone out.  I am sure his supporters would want even African Americans to go back to Africa it's just too early for them now

[aghagol 0]

23 hours ago, DILAW said:

I see what you mean.  Maybe you are right and I am wrong, but I still don't think an engagement is a bona fide relationship.  Marriage is definitely is, but not an engagement. 

What about this https://rapidvisa.com/how-to-prove-a-bona-fide-relationship/? it says k-1 visa requires proof of bona fide relationship.

[DILAW 94]

2 minutes ago, aghagol said:

What about this https://rapidvisa.com/how-to-prove-a-bona-fide-relationship/? it says k-1 visa requires proof of bona fide relationship.

I am leaning now towards believing a fiancee is considered a relative.  I still would want to see this officially from the USCIS, but good luck to you and all of us

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

11 minutes ago, DILAW said:

I am leaning now towards believing a fiancee is considered a relative.  I still would want to see this officially from the USCIS, but good luck to you and all of us

You are too hung up on 'relative'. Students with valid visas that plan to attend school and employees with valid visas that are
coming to work here for a company ALL have a bona fide relationship either with the school or company.
The term bona fide relationship goes for them too and they are not "family" or "engaged" but just students and employees with a valid
(as in bona fide)  relationship to school or company and with a visa.

[aghagol 0]

14 minutes ago, DILAW said:

I am leaning now towards believing a fiancee is considered a relative.  I still would want to see this officially from the USCIS, but good luck to you and all of us

Here is the official info from USCIS: https://www.uscis.gov/family/k-1-process-step-step  "If the DOS consular officer does not find the relationship bona fide, the K-1 visa will be refused, and the K-1 petition will be returned to USCIS." So it is U.S. Department of State's job (consular) to inspect the bona fide -ness of relationship. Thanks for the good wishes  

[r.a12345 11]

What about green card holders applying for a relative to come in? Do they have to be citizen or green card?