Has anyone used WebWed Mobile for getting married for their CR-1/IR-1?

[Lucky2Lucky 2,526]

Overthinking. Meet in person and get married. Easiest way.

[Loren Y 2,755]

Could always file a K1, as you have met within 2 years it seems like, and have proof of the meeting. Just throwing that out there. Now I will wait for the bashing to begin on me suggesting a K1. I'm just stating an option, so please, have mercy. LOL.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Loren Y

[kshoemoney 4]

2 minutes ago, Loren Y said:

Could always file a K1, as you have met within 2 years it seem like, and have proof of the meeting. Just throwing that out there. Now I will wait for the bashing to begin on me suggesting a K1. I'm just stating an option, so please, have mercy. LOL.

Haha yeah, we did think of that, but the 8+ month period without work while awaiting AOS is a tough pill to swallow.

 

37 minutes ago, James120383 said:

completely illegal with regards to immigration and US law 

I am really open to being proven wrong, but from the second-hand info that I've been able to find online, these weddings do appear to be legal and they are not legally considered proxy weddings, as you are both present (virtually) for the ceremony. I am still very skeptical of how USCIS would see them, but someone on reddit who actually got married with this service called the county clerk from the county that issued their license (Utah County, Utah), and the clerk confirmed that it is valid as they have very open marriage laws there (apparently there is no requirement that you are physically present for the ceremony). I am sure USCIS would have a thing or two say about it and it probably is very risky to try to get a visa with one, but they do not appear to be illegal marriages, as far as I can tell. Again tho, I could be wrong.

[SalishSea 17,836]

24 minutes ago, kshoemoney said:

Haha yeah, we did think of that, but the 8+ month period without work while awaiting AOS is a tough pill to swallow.

 

I am really open to being proven wrong, but from the second-hand info that I've been able to find online, these weddings do appear to be legal and they are not legally considered proxy weddings, as you are both present (virtually) for the ceremony. I am still very skeptical of how USCIS would see them, but someone on reddit who actually got married with this service called the county clerk from the county that issued their license (Utah County, Utah), and the clerk confirmed that it is valid as they have very open marriage laws there (apparently there is no requirement that you are physically present for the ceremony). I am sure USCIS would have a thing or two say about it and it probably is very risky to try to get a visa with one, but they do not appear to be illegal marriages, as far as I can tell. Again tho, I could be wrong.

How is that not a proxy?  It totally is.  "Virtual" is not "in-person."  Same reason people who "date" online for years are not exempt from the K-1 meeting requirement.

 

If you insist on doing that, please do return and let us know what USCIS has to say about it.

[pushbrk 12,898]

Ridiculous as it may sound, it really is possible to be too married for a fiancee visa and not married enough for a spouse visa.  In a US immigration context, any such marriage will put you in that category until you have evidence you've been together in person BEFORE the I-130 is filed. Both otherwise "legal" and "non-legal" marriages can put a couple in this circumstance.

[aaron2020 11,651]

1 hour ago, kshoemoney said:

Haha yeah, we did think of that, but the 8+ month period without work while awaiting AOS is a tough pill to swallow.

 

I am really open to being proven wrong, but from the second-hand info that I've been able to find online, these weddings do appear to be legal and they are not legally considered proxy weddings, as you are both present (virtually) for the ceremony. I am still very skeptical of how USCIS would see them, but someone on reddit who actually got married with this service called the county clerk from the county that issued their license (Utah County, Utah), and the clerk confirmed that it is valid as they have very open marriage laws there (apparently there is no requirement that you are physically present for the ceremony). I am sure USCIS would have a thing or two say about it and it probably is very risky to try to get a visa with one, but they do not appear to be illegal marriages, as far as I can tell. Again tho, I could be wrong.

The definition of a proxy wedding is that one party is not physically present at the wedding.  

[payxibka 10,045]

1 hour ago, kshoemoney said:

Haha yeah, we did think of that, but the 8+ month period without work while awaiting AOS is a tough pill to swallow.

 

I am really open to being proven wrong, but from the second-hand info that I've been able to find online, these weddings do appear to be legal and they are not legally considered proxy weddings, as you are both present (virtually) for the ceremony. I am still very skeptical of how USCIS would see them, but someone on reddit who actually got married with this service called the county clerk from the county that issued their license (Utah County, Utah), and the clerk confirmed that it is valid as they have very open marriage laws there (apparently there is no requirement that you are physically present for the ceremony). I am sure USCIS would have a thing or two say about it and it probably is very risky to try to get a visa with one, but they do not appear to be illegal marriages, as far as I can tell. Again tho, I could be wrong.

You are confusing state law with federal law.  No different than cannabis being legal in some states, but still illegal under federal law.   In addition,  this is nothing new.  Montana has been doing it for years.

 

However,  even though it is recognized by the or a state,  it still is NOT recognized federally for immigration purposes.   

Edited July 28, 2020 by payxibka

[geowrian 22,337]

7 hours ago, kshoemoney said:

So, if we were to use it get married, and then find a way to meet up and “consummate” the marriage, wouldn’t that fulfill the USCIS requirement?

Yes. But then why not just get married normally anywhere? You would be making things more complicated than it needs to be.

 

1 hour ago, aaron2020 said:

The definition of a proxy wedding is that one party is not physically present at the wedding.  

Well technically, it refers to a marriage where at least one individual acts as a proxy for a spouse-to-be who is not physically present. The term dates back long before live video streaming was a consideration.

The interpretation by USCIS and DOS, at least as stated in their policy manuals, just doesn't differentiate them.

 

5 hours ago, pushbrk said:

Technically, proxy marriages that have been consummated will fulfil the requirements, but I've seen nothing but problems with this over the years.  If you can see each other after marriage and before filing the petition, then you can probably also get married when you are together to consummate the marriage.  Doing it that way will avoid headaches later.

 

Google Proxy Marriage US Spouse visa and see what kind of stories you read.  You are not likely to find encouragement.

I 110% agree that just marrying in person is by far the best option here. It's just adding extra requirements (documenting that it was consummated, or at least reasonable could have been, in person after meeting) and unnecessary questions.

 

That said, I'm going to play devil's advocate here for just a sec with the terminology...

WebWed claims that this is not a proxy marriage by definition. There is nobody acting as a proxy. I've seen one of their marriages conducting live, and can veriyf there was nobody acting as a proxy.

The marriage license (and subsequent certificate) can be issued by a US authority permitted to issue them, and can be done so in the same manner as if the individuals were physically int he same place.

Specifically, I know they have at least successfully arranged for the court clerk in Utah county (yes - Utah county in the state of Utah!) to issue a valid marriage license - after verifying identity of the individuals via a document verification system - identical to that as they would issue to people who were both physically in front of them. They were fully aware that neither party were physically in the presence of each other and stated it was fine.

THAT SAID - bolded and caps as I cannot overstate this enough...

The wording in INA 101(a)(35) - https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1101&num=0&edition=prelim -  states:

Quote

The term "spouse", "wife", or "husband" do not include a spouse, wife, or husband by reason of any marriage ceremony where the contracting parties thereto are not physically present in the presence of each other, unless the marriage shall have been consummated.

The phrase "physically present" is used, not specifically "proxy marriage". So their services clearly would not meet this requirement for US immigration purposes.

 

Side story...

I follow a local attorney as he covers various legal topics who went through all early this month and used their services. Note that he is NOT an immigration attorney, but did do research into the process.

The main difference is he was using it as a means to be exempt from a travel ban into an EU country as a spouse of a citizen/resident there. I'm guessing the EU definition is less strict here than the US. Had his new spouse wanted to come to the US instead - before consummation of the marriage - he would have been in for a world of pain.

Then again...I have not seen him post a successful entry into the country yet video or tweet, nor any issues that could arise later in the process once the details are discovered (airline staff and border agents likely will take the MC at face value).

 

Edit::

Just saw the OP's note mentioning the Utah County, Utah thing as well. I'm like 99% confident these ultimately go back to the same person.

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by geowrian

[kshoemoney 4]

19 minutes ago, geowrian said:

Yes. But then why not just get married normally anywhere? You would be making things more complicated than it needs to be.

 

Due to the travel bans and that we are a same-sex couple, our only open options to get gay married right now are probably Mexico and the UK. Neither is a great options as, supposing we get thru a port of entry in one of those countries, there a few other hoops to get through before we could get married. So if there was a way as simple as getting married online, it could make sense to take it. That said, we don't want to risk wasting a year in processing only to find out they don't recognize our marriage. It is perhaps possible to use WebWed to get married and then use that to get me into visit Italy to consummate the marriage, then file the petition. But I think i need to talk to an attorney to figure out the best option.

 

Thanks for all your comments though, they were really helpful.

Edited July 28, 2020 by kshoemoney

[SalishSea 17,836]

34 minutes ago, kshoemoney said:

Due to the travel bans and that we are a same-sex couple, our only open options to get gay married right now are probably Mexico and the UK. Neither is a great options as, supposing we get thru a port of entry in one of those countries, there a few other hoops to get through before we could get married. So if there was a way as simple as getting married online, it could make sense to take it. That said, we don't want to risk wasting a year in processing only to find out they don't recognize our marriage. It is perhaps possible to use WebWed to get married and then use that to get me into visit Italy to consummate the marriage, then file the petition. But I think i need to talk to an attorney to figure out the best option.

 

Thanks for all your comments though, they were really helpful.

Have you looked into Gibraltar or Denmark or Iceland?  Those countries are often cited here on VJ as being relatively 'easy' in terms of red tape for two foreigners to marry.  And I'm not sure about Gibraltar, but same-sex marriage is legal in Denmark and Iceland.

[kshoemoney 4]

7 minutes ago, Jorgedig said:

Have you looked into Gibraltar or Denmark or Iceland?  Those countries are often cited here on VJ as being relatively 'easy' in terms of red tape for two foreigners to marry.  And I'm not sure about Gibraltar, but same-sex marriage is legal in Denmark and Iceland.

I cannot enter those countries at the moment AFAIK because I am in the U.S.

[pushbrk 12,898]

1 hour ago, kshoemoney said:

I cannot enter those countries at the moment AFAIK because I am in the U.S.

Lots of people's plans are on hold because of COVID 19 related travel restrictions.  I understand now that being same sex complicates your choices, but there WILL be available travel choices in the future, and you can avail of those choices be together in person for a marriage.  I still think that is your best choice, but do as you wish or see fit.

[nics222 3]

12 hours ago, kshoemoney said:

I came across this service last night called WebWed Mobile that offers 100% legal marriages online and given that my boyfriend are not able to see each other right now because of COVID (I am in NYC and he is in Italy), but we want to get married, I thought that if this is legit it would be a lifesaver. I am skeptical because I haven't heard much about it, but they have been operational since 2016 and they do not do proxy marriages, but instead specialize in cyber jurisdiction and you get a traditional marriage certificate. They say they do not offer immigration legal advice, as immigration approval is more complicated than just being married, but that customers of theirs have used marriage licenses through WebWed to get spousal visas.

 

I am wondering if anyone has used this service and can speak to whether it is acceptable to use for immigration purposes? I would think if it was legit that everyone would be raving about it, but it seems like no one has heard of it. Conversely, if it was a scam I would expect to find people saying that loudly as well, but there isn't really. There are many positive reviews on reviews.io but I would love to find someone that could speak to its legitimacy for immigration purposes. I don't want to do it if it will mean USCIS doesn't look at our marriage as legitimate, but if it does work, then it would be a no brainer to do, since we could get our petition rolling now, since the travel restrictions are likely to be in place for many months in the future anyway. Also, if we were married, they would let him in to visit during covid because they allow in Spouses of U.S. citizens, I believe.

 

Thanks for your help!

Actually I'm not sure how true this is but I saw an article online about NY, apparently they signed an executive order some few months ago allowing couples to marry via the web. There's also a group on fb for long distance couples, a young lady did in fact get married lasy week via online wedweb, she published her story.. It's legit. 

[Just Paul 4,595]

24 minutes ago, nics222 said:

There's also a group on fb for long distance couples, a young lady did in fact get married lasy week via online wedweb, she published her story.. It's legit.

 . . . which is fine until the USCIS says you weren't celebrating / consummating the marriage together.  States can do whatever they want but federal code, specifically immigration, won't accept / recognize marriages unless the two parties do it face to face.  Unfortunately that is how immigration looks at it.

[Melc 138]

 

6 hours ago, Jorgedig said:

Have you looked into Gibraltar or Denmark or Iceland?  Those countries are often cited here on VJ as being relatively 'easy' in terms of red tape for two foreigners to marry.  And I'm not sure about Gibraltar, but same-sex marriage is legal in Denmark and Iceland.

Happily gay married in Gibraltar here. Can confirm it's entirely legal. 

 

@kshoemoney I don't think Gibraltar is barring entry to US citizens/residents. Just make sure to transfer in the UK when you do fly over. 

 

Just as an aside, getting married in the UK would be more difficult as you'd require a specific Visa to get married there, even if you normally do not require one as a tourist. This does not apply to Gibraltar. Gibraltar also does not require apostilles. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Melc