Will the new travel Ban affect fiance visas also ?

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

3 minutes ago, geowrian said:

To be fair, that's only the administration's perspective. Go figure they would distort the intent of the ruling...and note even they used the wording "close relationship", whereas the actual wording from SCOTUS for the exclusion was "bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity". They did the same thing with the original ban by overstepping bounds...applying it to LPRs when there was absolutely no legal basis or authority for them to do so.

 

The weird thing to me is the following paragraph:

"The new guidelines sent to U.S. embassies and consulates on Wednesday say that applicants from the six countries must prove a relationship with a parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling in the U.S. "

 

Since when do any in-laws count as a "close (family) relationship" for any immigration purpose? And why only sons and daughters (no age restrictions), but not parents or siblings? This (again) reeks of people hastily writing rules without an understanding of current law or how things are done just to get something out the door.

I agree. I do not think this interpretation of "close" will stand.

I abhor any regulations anywhere by anyone that are hastily cooked up without the fine tuning 
of details. This makes me crazy, be it in a company or government. it is sloppy and laziness and plain and simple ignorance.
As I said chaos will once again follow.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

5 minutes ago, Leila120 said:

BREAKING NEWS: 

 

From national legal director of ACLU (on Twitter):
"Muslim Ban update: Trump administration has reversed itself on fiancées. Now agrees w us they are covered by injunction. Grandma next?"

 

It looks like the threat of lawsuits may have changed their minds! 

Just as I believed it would unfold. Hopefully grandma is next lol. Why they do not work out the details first is beyond me. T - dude had
a long time to work on the details of the revised travel ban but he isn't into details only tweets detailing how much a woman 

is bleeding these days.
 

[Shahrooz 1]

NEW UPDATE:

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/news/important-announcement.html

 

What is a close familial relationship for the purposes of determining if someone is subject to the E.O. per the Supreme Court decision? 

A close familial relationship is defined as a parent (including parent-in-law), spouse, fiancé, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sibling, whether whole or half, and including step relationships.  “Close family” does not include grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, and any other “extended” family members.

 

[K-1Applicant2017 110]

I have been deeply concerned about this as well, but I think its too early to stress (I know its much easier said than done). The Embassies leaked the guidelines that the White House sent out shortly after they announced the formal proclamation on Sunday night. It is my understanding that once phase 2 kicks in, we will be denied unless the reviewing counsel officer makes a determination for a waiver on the spot at the interview. to restate the wavier criteria:

 

a) Denying entry would cause undue hardship to the applicant;
b) His or her entry would not pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States; and
c) His or her entry would be in the U.S. national interest.

The instructions define the first requirements as "the applicant must demonstrate to the consular officer’s satisfaction that an unusual situation exists that compels immediate travel by the applicant and that delaying visa issuance and the associated travel plans until after visa restrictions imposed with respect to nationals of that country are lifted would defeat the purpose of travel."  

 

It doesn't really sound like they meant to include family, spouse or fiancé within the waiver definition. to me, it seems like this was meant for people that are in some type of imminent danger. But, the guidelines do say the following: 

 

(SBU) Consular officers may not categorically grant case-by-case-waivers. The P.P. includes the following examples where case-by-case waivers may be appropriate:

...

d) The applicant seeks to enter the United States to visit or reside with a close family member (e.g., a spouse, child or parent) who is a U.S. citizen, LPR, or alien lawfully admitted on a valid NIV, and the denial of entry during the suspension period would cause the foreign national undue hardship;

 

So it's possibly that they will grant fiancé's a waiver on the spot, but if the courts don't step in and stop this, I doubt they will.   

 

In my opinion, don't freak out just yet.  I strongly believe that this new ban violates the 14th amendment which protects our right to marry and have a family with whom ever we want. Under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, the government cannot take that right away without showing that the law furthers a compelling governmental interest, and the ban is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. I don't think the white house will be able to convince any judge that the government has a compelling interest in preventing family members, spouses, and fiancés from entry. It's also pretty obvious that this isa blanket ban that is not narrow at all. I also don't thing the Supreme Court is going to be very happy with how the White House wants to get rid  or the "bon fide relationship" test in phase 2, since the Supreme Court slammed them over that over the last ban.  I read a statement from the Hawaii attorney generals office (the same guys that blocked the other ban) and they announced that they are review they're challenge to the new ban and will submit a their arguments to the Supreme Court on October 5th. 

 

I hope my very long rambling alleviates some stress for you and the others in the same boat as us. it certainly 

 

 

Here's the full text:

http://live.reuters.com/event/live_US_Politics/1093572667

[Scandi 4,166]

28 minutes ago, K-1Applicant2017 said:

 

 

In my opinion, don't freak out just yet.  I strongly believe that this new ban violates the 14th amendment which protects our right to marry and have a family with whom ever we want. Under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, the government cannot take that right away without showing that the law furthers a compelling governmental interest, and the ban is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. I don't think the white house will be able to convince any judge that the government has a compelling interest in preventing family members, spouses, and fiancés from entry. It's also pretty obvious that this isa blanket ban that is not narrow at all. I also don't thing the Supreme Court is going to be very happy with how the White House wants to get rid  or the "bon fide relationship" test in phase 2, since the Supreme Court slammed them over that over the last ban.  I read a statement from the Hawaii attorney generals office (the same guys that blocked the other ban) and they announced that they are review they're challenge to the new ban and will submit a their arguments to the Supreme Court on October 5th. 

 

I hope my very long rambling alleviates some stress for you and the others in the same boat as us. it certainly 

 

 

Here's the full text:

http://live.reuters.com/event/live_US_Politics/1093572667

It's not your right to marry whoever you want, I bet no states allow you to marry your sibling etc. Other than that, it might be your right to marry whoever you want but immigration isn't a right. Marriage and immigration are two different things. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Scandi

[K-1Applicant2017 110]

41 minutes ago, Scandi said:

It's not your right to marry whoever you want, I bet no states allow you to marry your sibling etc. Other than that, it might be your right to marry whoever you want but immigration isn't a right. Marriage and immigration are two different things. 

 

Fundamental rights are not unlimited rights; in that sense you are correct. But the state or government cannot take that away

Quote

1 hour ago, K-1Applicant2017 said:

without showing that the law furthers a compelling governmental interest, and the ban is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

 

My point is that Travel ban 3.0 against family, spouses and fiancés are not  supported by a compelling government interest because there has not been an instance of violence brought into the US or Europe by this categoric group. the ban is also not narrowly tailored because it bans every and any type of familiar relationship. I believe we will see this argument play our in the Courts soon. 

 

in contrast, its well established that States have a strong interest in preventing sibling from marry each other because it has a wide societal impact. that rule is narrowly tailored because it does not prevent you from marrying your second cousin or other family members. 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by K-1Applicant2017

[ForeverHopeful 7]

The ACLU is working on our behalf to challenge this new order like it has with the first two. I made a tax-deductible gift to them today which is being matched dollar-for-dollar. Here is the specific link for the ACLU 2017 Matching Gift Fund.

https://action.aclu.org/secure/make-tax-deductible-gift-aclu-foundation?s_src=FNNC170001C00&ms=web_left_nav

The dollar-for-dollar match is only good until Sept 30th. I don't work for the ACLU but they are fighting for us and our right to bring the ones we love into the US. Please support them if you can. You're helping yourself by helping them. 

[OverHere 0]

Is a fiance visa  for a US Citizen / Iranian  Citizen affected by Trumps bas and restrictions? ( I am about to file one)

[Shahrooz 1]

27 minutes ago, OverHere said:

Is a fiance visa  for a US Citizen / Iranian  Citizen affected by Trumps bas and restrictions? ( I am about to file one)

If your fiance is frkm any of those countries ,Yes it will affect but as they made the process way longer for iranian (it can take more than 2 years including AP) who knows what will happen till then ? Just do what you have to and file yours

[K-1Applicant2017 110]

6 hours ago, Leila120 said:

Unfortunately yes. The new ban 3.0 will ban fiancées, spouses, parents, & children after October 18.  

 

However, you could qualify for a visa waiver for ( undue hardship ) and you will have to get this waiver done by a lawyer. This does not guarantee that your fiancée will get a visa. The interviewing officer will determine if their is undue hardship, and that having your fiancée here is in the national interest. 

 

I think your visa waiver would be more powerful if you got married and applied for a spouse visa, but if for some reason you can't do that, I would still not give up hope.

 

@Leila120 good to know!  have you had the chance to speak to an attorney about getting a waiver? I don't really understand the "hardship" requirement of the requirement and particularly what would qualify. 

 

 The Ban 3.0 has already been challenged in Court. I was able to get my hands on a copy of the complaint filing. count #5 on page 30 is what I wrote about earlier and I believe it has a strong chance of prevailing for us. fingers crossed.  

 

 

NIAC COURT FILING.pdf

[OverHere 0]

20 hours ago, Leila120 said:

Unfortunately yes. The new ban 3.0 will ban fiancées, spouses, parents, & children after October 18.  

 

However, you could qualify for a visa waiver for ( undue hardship ) and you will have to get this waiver done by a lawyer. This does not guarantee that your fiancée will get a visa. The interviewing officer will determine if their is undue hardship, and that having your fiancée here is in the national interest. 

 

I think your visa waiver would be more powerful if you got married and applied for a spouse visa, but if for some reason you can't do that, I would still not give up hope.

 Wow - thanks for this info -  what a mess.... Q: Is there any significant advantage to "filing' before October 17 ? 

[Czgirl88 0]

On 10/6/2017 at 7:41 PM, OverHere said:

 Wow - thanks for this info -  what a mess.... Q: Is there any significant advantage to "filing' before October 17 ? 

I also thought about filing before October 17. I am super depressed. Today, the lawyer basically told me to get married instead of trying for a k1 visa. 

[natasha-mehdito 137]

On September 27, 2017 at 6:27 PM, ForeverHopeful said:

The ACLU is working on our behalf to challenge this new order like it has with the first two. I made a tax-deductible gift to them today which is being matched dollar-for-dollar. Here is the specific link for the ACLU 2017 Matching Gift Fund.

https://action.aclu.org/secure/make-tax-deductible-gift-aclu-foundation?s_src=FNNC170001C00&ms=web_left_nav

The dollar-for-dollar match is only good until Sept 30th. I don't work for the ACLU but they are fighting for us and our right to bring the ones we love into the US. Please support them if you can. You're helping yourself by helping them. 

I did the same....Lets hope!

[OverHere 0]

I am about to send my K1 docs in...

 

So where do we stand with this new ban??
- Is it blocked or not ?

- Is a K-1 Visa still accepted (if you are applying for a fiance that is in one of the banned countries).

 

Thanks everyone ahead  of time...

[OverHere 0]

On 10/7/2017 at 11:52 PM, Czgirl88 said:

I also thought about filing before October 17. I am super depressed. Today, the lawyer basically told me to get married instead of trying for a k1 visa. 

Thats very drastic....
Can you explain a bit ? 
- Did lawyer say K1 visa will not be accepted any longer ? 
- or just better chances ... or?