Petition to include K1 filers as exemption from travel bans

[8bithearts 104]

Just now, JBF said:

They have created a petition and it can be redone and modified, obviously. The ultimate goal is always the same one, to be able to be exempt from the bans, as other family members are.

I wholeheartedly agree that should be the case

[JBF 116]

3 minutes ago, 8bithearts said:

I wholeheartedly agree that should be the case

The petition was in my opinion trying to point out the fact that in case of fiancés it’s just as hard as it can be for spouses. And an exemption should be included. At the end, we are all trying to be reunited with our family. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by JBF

[8bithearts 104]

4 minutes ago, JBF said:

The petition was in my opinion trying to point out the fact that in case of fiancés is just as hard as it can be for spouses. And an exemption should be included. At the end, we are all trying to be reunited with our family. 

Absolutely, its not a competition to see who has it the hardest.. we all do, we just want to be with our significant others.  I can see the points about a fiancé not being an immediate relative as others have pointed out, the petition does not need this, all it needs is to say that K1 visa applicants should be exempt from the EO travel ban and I will happily sign it.

Edited June 20, 2020 by 8bithearts

[JBF 116]

3 minutes ago, 8bithearts said:

Absolutely, its not a competition to see who has it the hardest.. we all do, we just want to be with our significant others.  I can see the points about a fiancé not being an immediate relative as others have pointed out, the petition does not need this, all it needs is to say that K1 visa applicants should be exempt from the EO travel ban and I will happily sign it.

Another one could be created, in my opinion it wouldn’t be a problem. A petition itself may not be useful, but could eventually always bring a change for thousands of people that are currently concluding a visa that in a way has been forgotten. And as I already said, it’s simply important to understand that what has been stated in the petition was used as a ground considering how the DS states it specifically and could be indeed stress the point of the petition. 

[LoveJonLovell 306]

Only just catching up with this... It seems like it's worth a sign, for now, right? I unfortunately can't. it recognised I wasn't in America I think, but my Fiancée is and she will... only 115 signatures, though? worth copying the link and asking friends and family on FB to 'help me get my love here'?

 

[JBF 116]

7 minutes ago, JL0583 said:

Only just catching up with this... It seems like it's worth a sign, for now, right? I unfortunately can't. it recognised I wasn't in America I think, but my Fiancée is and she will... only 115 signatures, though? worth copying the link and asking friends and family on FB to 'help me get my love here'?

 

Don’t worry, you can sign even though you’re not in the US. And talking about numbers, it honestly depends on how many people want to sign it, but it’s definitely worth trying. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by JBF

[HRQX 4,145]

7 hours ago, JeanneAdil said:

I have read the whole EO and it allows for the exemtions of spouses,  children of spouses,  those with an approved visa,  medical visas,  

and leaves out the K1

Reread the April 22 Presidential Proclamation (PP); specifically Section 1: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspending-entry-immigrants-present-risk-u-s-labor-market-economic-recovery-following-covid-19-outbreak/ That PP affects certain IVs, not NIVs.

 

Edited June 21, 2020 by HRQX

[SalishSea 17,833]

9 hours ago, geowrian said:

Same. Heck, I did the K-1 path.

Edit: And as a side note, I'm getting really tired of all the "they don't know/remember..." and general us/them type of comments. Nobody forgets the separation.. It's not a competition for biggest loser. Having a different view or opinion is not due to inconsideration, forgetfulness, etc.

Same here.  I did a K-1.  The legal status and definition of spouse is not the same as fiance.  

[JBF 116]

13 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Same here.  I did a K-1.  The legal status and definition of spouse is not the same as fiance.  

 In my case I’ve never said this, and I’ve simply been saying that they are considered as “immediate family” in certain forms and could be exempt from the ban. That has been my whole point, personally. 

[SalishSea 17,833]

Just now, JBF said:

 In my case I’ve never said this, and I’ve simply been saying that they are considered as “immediate family” in certain forms and could be exempt from the ban. That has been my whole point, personally. 

They are not "considered immediate family" per the statutes quoted by others in this thread.  

[JBF 116]

Just now, Jorgedig said:

They are not "considered immediate family" per the statutes quoted by others in this thread.  

I indeed mentioned the DS and have also shown where it states such definition. As some other family members, k1s could be added to the exemptions. 

[geowrian 22,337]

4 minutes ago, JBF said:

I indeed mentioned the DS and have also shown where it states such definition. As some other family members, k1s could be added to the exemptions. 

The DS-160 also mentions a brother/sister as an immediate relative to be listed, but they are not viewed or treated as such by any other immigration process.

 

Edit: The point is that you can't cherry pick one form and use that as a basis to imply it's already recognized despite laws and policies in place that say otherwise.

Edited June 21, 2020 by geowrian

[JBF 116]

13 minutes ago, geowrian said:

The DS-160 also mentions a brother/sister as an immediate relative to be listed, but they are not viewed or treated as such by any other immigration process.

 

Edit: The point is that you can't cherry pick one form and use that as a basis to imply it's already recognized despite laws and policies in place that say otherwise.

It would be difficult to have other basis in my opinion to prove a point, other than a document that even though may not represent law itself, is actually official and released by the government. But then again, I haven’t created the petition to get signatures, and hopefully it can be modified. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by JBF

[geowrian 22,337]

3 minutes ago, JBF said:

It would be difficult to have other basis in my opinion to prove a point, other than a document that even though may not represent law itself, is actually official and released by the government.

1) Law (INA)

2) Regulations (CFRs)

3) Policies (FAM)

 

The DS-160 is an important form, sure, but it is does not set in place any of the above.

[JBF 116]

12 minutes ago, geowrian said:

1) Law (INA)

2) Regulations (CFRs)

3) Policies (FAM)

 

The DS-160 is an important form, sure, but it is does not set in place any of the above.

In my personal opinion the petition itself won’t work, but could eventually bring change, in a way awareness and hopefully move something. 
According to everyone who has commented, or most of them, the issue is the wording used in the petition, which cites indeed the DS. 
 

And, something I wanted to bring attention to, is the fact that those categories listed as “immediate family” in the DS are all, in certain ways, excluded from the ban. Not fiancés, though. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by JBF