B2 visa polygamy

[Boiler 46,034]

2 minutes ago, Paul & Mary said:

With all of the forgotten children questions, and oops we are kinda married K1s too, that came up last week, I realized very clearly that either people are not reading the forms or have no clue as to what they mean.  The husband can't get a visa if he answered the DS-260 honestly.

One is more than enough in the US for me. 

 

I assume usually they lie.

[geowrian 22,338]

Good thing nobody else involved in this wants to immigrate at any point. That would certainly raise some red flags when they claim a marriage to somebody who is already married and claimed not to be engaging in polygamy.

[jan22 3,062]

1 hour ago, SusieQQQ said:

Something is wrong here. When someone is going to get a green card or naturalize in the US and he is in a polygamous marriage, US law requires that he divorce all but one wife. So the fact that you are only separated from your husband (who has another wife there) means he has broken US law, probably by not declaring the marriage. Regardless... none of that is actually your problem.  You apply, you can use your name as it is, if they ask about your marital situation you must be honest about what it is. If polygamy is legal in your country, which I assume it is, it is not a problem for you. Whatever you do, do not lie on any application to US immigration or you could face a permanent ban. If your husband has lied to them that is his problem to deal with, not yours. 

Sorry, but part of this is not accurate.  If the marriages were legal in the home country, he does not have to divorce the other spouses.  However, he can only apply for immigration of the first spouse, as that is the only marriage the US recognizes.  And, he cannot practice polygamy in the US (i.e., he cannot be involved in a spousal relationship even if other wives somehow make it to the US, unless he divorces wife #1).

[Unlockable 7,315]

17 minutes ago, jan22 said:

And, he cannot practice polygamy in the US (i.e., he cannot be involved in a spousal relationship even if other wives somehow make it to the US, unless he divorces wife #1).

And this is the biggest hurdle they are facing. Yes, he is not petitioning for his second spouse. But the perception will be that he is getting her a visa so he can practice polygamy "under the radar". The CO may think the other spouse will use the visitor visa to stay months at a time and play house together.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

Well you can have 3 wives.

 

Not just at the same time.

Just like the dear leader of the USA.

[Russ&Caro 1,549]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

Well you can have 3 wives.

 

Not just at the same time.

 

1 hour ago, Paul & Mary said:

One is more than enough in the US for me. 

 

It was not exactly in my wedding vows but I told my wife before marriage that I was only going to ever do this once. I don't think my psyche is cut out for repeats.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

2 hours ago, jan22 said:

Sorry, but part of this is not accurate.  If the marriages were legal in the home country, he does not have to divorce the other spouses.  However, he can only apply for immigration of the first spouse, as that is the only marriage the US recognizes.  And, he cannot practice polygamy in the US (i.e., he cannot be involved in a spousal relationship even if other wives somehow make it to the US, unless he divorces wife #1).

I’ve seen both points of view mentioned. However you cannot naturalize if you have more than one legal spouse. If polygamy is legal in the country mentioned, then there is more than one legal spouse and divorce therefore needs to happen. 
 

I am aware of a case where the person divorced all but his second wife and immigrated with her. 

[jan22 3,062]

6 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

I’ve seen both points of view mentioned. However you cannot naturalize if you have more than one legal spouse. If polygamy is legal in the country mentioned, then there is more than one legal spouse and divorce therefore needs to happen. 
 

I am aware of a case where the person divorced all but his second wife and immigrated with her. 

You're right -- if he wishes to immigrate wife #2, he can divorce wife #1.  This then makes wife #2 as the only spouse the US recognizes.  As the US doesn't recognize the others as valid marriages for immigration purposes, he does not need to divorce the others to immigrate or naturalize.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

50 minutes ago, jan22 said:

You're right -- if he wishes to immigrate wife #2, he can divorce wife #1.  This then makes wife #2 as the only spouse the US recognizes.  As the US doesn't recognize the others as valid marriages for immigration purposes, he does not need to divorce the others to immigrate or naturalize.

And you are correct on that latter count - I must have seen incorrect advice before. The FAM (9 FAM 302.12-2(B)(3) (U) ) says

 

 To sustain an inadmissibility, an officer would have to find the applicant will maintain a married relationship with more than one spouse while in the United States. If one spouse is traveling with the alien while the other spouse remains overseas, the alien can only be found ineligible, if the officer believes the alien will continue a relationship with the left-behind spouse - for example visiting the spouse, providing financial support, keeping in phone contact. If an alien is legally married to a second spouse, but maintains no active relationship with that spouse, then that would not be practicing polygamy and would not sustain an ineligibility. 

OP, what this means is that actually it isn’t a problem for either you or your husband to admit still being legally married, as long as he maintains no contact with you (obviously this would also exclude you visiting him).

[JFH 12,191]

9 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

And you are correct on that latter count - I must have seen incorrect advice before. The FAM (9 FAM 302.12-2(B)(3) (U) ) says

 

 To sustain an inadmissibility, an officer would have to find the applicant will maintain a married relationship with more than one spouse while in the United States. If one spouse is traveling with the alien while the other spouse remains overseas, the alien can only be found ineligible, if the officer believes the alien will continue a relationship with the left-behind spouse - for example visiting the spouse, providing financial support, keeping in phone contact. If an alien is legally married to a second spouse, but maintains no active relationship with that spouse, then that would not be practicing polygamy and would not sustain an ineligibility. 

OP, what this means is that actually it isn’t a problem for either you or your husband to admit still being legally married, as long as he maintains no contact with you (obviously this would also exclude you visiting him).

But how do you prove a negative? Very difficult. How do you prove you are not going to visit someone in a private home? And how do you prove you are not in contact with someone? 

[jan22 3,062]

28 minutes ago, JFH said:

But how do you prove a negative? Very difficult. How do you prove you are not going to visit someone in a private home? And how do you prove you are not in contact with someone? 

The same way you overcome 214b -- convince the consular officer during the interview.  In many ways, this is easier than overcoming 214b, where you start with the negative -- that the person intends to immigrate until they can prove otherwise. With this, you start with the positive - that the person does not intend to have contact with the spouse until the officer develops information to the contrary.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

45 minutes ago, JFH said:

But how do you prove a negative? Very difficult. How do you prove you are not going to visit someone in a private home? And how do you prove you are not in contact with someone? 

Any successful tourist visa application is proving a negative - that you won’t overstay.

[JFH 12,191]

12 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Any successful tourist visa application is proving a negative - that you won’t overstay.

But you prove a positive with that - you show you have reasons to come home. It’s much easier to show proof of a job, mortgage, upcoming medical appointments in the home country, pets, car, financial commitments, kids in school, etc than to prove you will not make a telephone call to someone. 
 

I’m not disagreeing with you, just thinking aloud as to how anyone can prove they haven’t been in contact with someone when text messages, emails, phone records can be deleted. Ask me to show you my ties to my home here and I can give you a whole binder of stuff. Ask me to prove I’ve had no contact with my sister for 10 years and I have nothing. 

[geowrian 22,338]

I don't think they need to prove it. They need to convince the CO. Two different bars at play.

 

From the FAM quote:

Quote

if the officer believes...

 

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

20 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I don't think they need to prove it. They need to convince the CO. Two different bars at play.

 

From the FAM quote:

 

Agree. 

 

33 minutes ago, JFH said:

But you prove a positive with that - you show you have reasons to come home. It’s much easier to show proof of a job, mortgage, upcoming medical appointments in the home country, pets, car, financial commitments, kids in school, etc than to prove you will not make a telephone call to someone. 
 

I’m not disagreeing with you, just thinking aloud as to how anyone can prove they haven’t been in contact with someone when text messages, emails, phone records can be deleted. Ask me to show you my ties to my home here and I can give you a whole binder of stuff. Ask me to prove I’ve had no contact with my sister for 10 years and I have nothing. 

None of those “prove” anything though (in fact people have certainly been known to leave financial commitments behind when they illegally overstay in the US! Upcoming medical appointments-unless you are critically ill it’s hardly a tie. Etc) back to this case... An obvious way imo would be to provide details of both past and anticipated US trips that the OP stays elsewhere than with husband, has been meeting other friends, preferably in a totally different city etc. By contrast it would certainly  look suspicious if the trips are only to the city husband lives in, for example.