Petitioned - Married

[Othan007 1]

5 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

You’ll just waste time and money doing that. The F2B classification you were filed under is for unmarried son or daughter over 21 of an LPR. There is no situation in which an LPR can file for a married child, so your marriage made the basis for that petition invalid. However if it makes you feel better for them to deny you rather than taking our word for it, at least please get your parents to file a new petition now so you don’t waste any more time.

—-

Question to others: will NVC return the petition now that OP has listed his wife and child, or will he have to go all the way to interview and wait all that time plus spending maybe another thousand+ dollars on interview fees and medicals for the family before getting denied?

 

 

Thank you. 

[geowrian 22,338]

As noted, the moment you married while your petitioner was not yet a USC, you no longer were eligible for any immigrant visa category based on that petition. As such, the petition became immediately invalid. They just didn't know about it yet so the process moved on like normal. There is no point in proceeding with it as it's a waste of time and money.

Time to start over with a new petition.

 

3 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

Question to others: will NVC return the petition now that OP has listed his wife and child, or will he have to go all the way to interview and wait all that time plus spending maybe another thousand+ dollars on interview fees and medicals for the family before getting denied?

Depends if they catch it or not. If caught, the petition should be returned to be formally revoked. If not, the CO should catch it.

Edited May 24, 2020 by geowrian

[designguy 1,179]

1 minute ago, geowrian said:

As noted, the moment you married while your petitioner was not yet a USC, you no longer were eligible for any immigrant visa category based on that petition. As such, the petition became immediately invalid. They just didn't know about it yet so the process moved on like normal. There is no point in proceeding with it as it's a waste of time and money.

Time to start over with a new petition.

Hypothetically what if OP divorces?

[geowrian 22,338]

3 minutes ago, designguy said:

Hypothetically what if OP divorces?

Then the newly filed petition will fall under F1 instead of F3. The existing petition became invalid upon marriage and cannot be reinstated later.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

55 minutes ago, designguy said:

Hypothetically what if OP divorces?

 

51 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Then the newly filed petition will fall under F1 instead of F3. The existing petition became invalid upon marriage and cannot be reinstated later.

This.
Plus, a divorce to gain an immigration benefit (in this case a faster processing time F1 vs F3) is immigration fraud and if not picked up at interview would be picked up when remarriage/filing for wife takes place.

[geowrian 22,338]

1 minute ago, SusieQQQ said:

Plus, a divorce to gain an immigration benefit (in this case a faster processing time F1 vs F3) is immigration fraud and if not picked up at interview would be picked up when remarriage/filing for wife takes place.

I've never heard of any such provision in the law or via rule/policy.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I've never heard of any such provision in the law or via rule/policy.

 

1 hour ago, designguy said:

Hypothetically what if OP divorces?

Not to mention divorce is not allowed in the Philippines unless the OP is Muslim

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

5 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I've never heard of any such provision in the law or via rule/policy.

I have seen it stated in uscis policy, somewhere in that voluminous FAM.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

9 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

I have seen it stated in uscis policy, somewhere in that voluminous FAM.

Ugh, they’ve changed all the online stuff but it’s here:

 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/policymanual/afm/afm21-external.pdf (I think it’s page 19, the pages are not numbered in the document)

 

This raises the distinct possibility that someone might engage in divorce fraud in order to qualify for an immigration benefit. As we do not recognize a marriage which is contracted solely to circumvent immigration law, we also do not recognize a divorce which is obtained solely to circumvent immigration law.

Edited May 24, 2020 by SusieQQQ

[geowrian 22,338]

19 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Ugh, they’ve changed all the online stuff but it’s here:

 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/policymanual/afm/afm21-external.pdf (I think it’s page 19, the pages are not numbered in the document)

 

This raises the distinct possibility that someone might engage in divorce fraud in order to qualify for an immigration benefit. As we do not recognize a marriage which is contracted solely to circumvent immigration law, we also do not recognize a divorce which is obtained solely to circumvent immigration law.

Hmm...raises some interesting questions. I can see how a sudden divorce to get an F1 preference visa could fall into that area (a divorce in name only, without any true division or separation involved).

At the same time, there are plenty of cases where somebody divorced just to get a K-1 visa (especially back when it was taking years for a spousal visa), or people who had multiple spouses and divorced then remarried so their current spouse could immigrate (and had success). Although I would assume the latter case may have real separation issues so it may be different.

Or cases where somebody committed bigamy by remarrying before a divorce was finalized, then had to divorce and remarry. That seemingly would all under this as well, but people have done that. I think the application of this may be targeted at cases like F3 -> F1. Although the question of what exactly qualifies as a sham. is a big one (what if they divorce several years beforehand but still lived together in a relationship?).

 

Anyway, my original response was only in regard to the divorce itself, not anything to do with remarriage to the same individual.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

16 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Anyway, my original response was only in regard to the divorce itself, not anything to do with remarriage to the same individual.

Yup, but to to the extent the question it was responding to could be interpreted as “hey, maybe here’s a way to get around it...” I thought it best to cut that one off at the pass.