Not getting married. No money to send her back.

[Magnolia31 0]

I both laughed at that post, and also felt the reality of it. The couple doesn't want to be in a situation where they are illegal. They still have a little time to figure things out.

Posting here in the forum was their best bet at learning good information, and possible suggestions for continuing the relationship legally here in the states.

There are a several reasons why they "can't" get married before the 90 visa is up. Much of it is financial on the part of the US petitioner. Anything he borrows from friends or family, he would prefer it to be for basics such as food, roof over head, that kind of thing.

You all basically confirmed that there is nothing legally they can do for her to stay after the 90 days, they will just have to hope that something improves and they they can get married sooner rather than later. So that they can be together here in the US.

They don't want to be a statistic... (of the 12 million variety).

How did they even qualify for a K-1 visa if he has no money to take care of her? Not trying to be rude or anything but doesn't the Affidavit of Support with supporting documents prove whether you can financially be responsible or not?

Why can't he work 2 or 3 jobs? I would seriously do that if I had to.

I dunno, everything doesn't make sense to me. I guess because we don't know all of the details. ::shrugs::

[Magnolia31 0]

A marriage license costs 50-75$...and if you belong to a church there are ways to work out so that the priest or pastor will marry the couple and not accept the 'honorarium'. Or a Justice of the Peace can perform the marriage...and that's not so expensive either. Perhaps they can contact either the local media, or even their church or a charitable organization in their area...there may be some help offered that can solve their not having enough money for even a ceremony problem. Just MHO.

-P

You know, I too think it's far out. All you need to get married is a marriage license. In CA it cost us $180, but I bet it's cheaper in other places. This is all you need. There is nothing else involved. This is how we got married - no guests, no flowers, no wedding dress, just the county clerk-recorder. We were dirt poor, no money whatsoever. But we could afford a marriage license

Can't they just get married at the City hall, to avoid all the overstay/adjustment issues, and then, in the future, when they save up some money, they can have a big reception with hundreds of guests and a wedding cake.

It's just really hard to give advice when I don't understand the reasons they can't get married. If they love each other, what is the problem? Going back to Russia wouldn't make any sense if they still want to be together.

Wow, that's expensive! We only paid $20 LOL

[Nessa 23]

We paid 50 here in KS.

[Yodrak 7]

The statement is correct, although improper punctuation makes it unnecessarily difficult to understand. Remove the 2nd comma and it becomes clearer.

Yodrak

If she does leave the USA outside the 90 days, a 3 year bar will be imposed on returning, if overstay is more than 180 days but less than a year, and a 10 year bar would be imposed if overstay is 1 year or more.

This statement is incorrect.

Per section 212(a)(9) ( b ) (i)(I), the three-year bar applies only to persons who were unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days and less than one year, and who voluntarily departed the U.S. prior to commencement of proceedings.

The intending immigrant can virtually remain here another 180 days after expiration of the visa and then file to adjust status with no danger of the bar.

[Yodrak 7]

fwaguy,

Daisy didn't write, "a legal process for adjusting from K-1 after the 90 days", she wrote, "a legal process for still adjusting status after entry on a K1 if the marriage occured outside the 90 days".

Your substitution of "from" for "after entry on" changes the meaning of what Daisy wrote.

Yodrak

When you say a legal process for adjusting from K-1 after the 90 days, I guarantee that there is nothing in the CFR that will give you this road map. It takes an understanding of how the USCIS views and adjudicates to conclude that this may be a viable alternative.

[Yodrak 7]

Karly-n-Bruce,

I hate when people say something like 'I'm too lazy to pay attention or search, but I want you to take your time to explain a FAQ to me again'. You've been a member for 9 months or so and this issue is discussed weekly.

A K1 needs an EAD - card or stamp - in order for an employer to legally hire them. The K1 is working quite legally - they are EA. It's the employer who is breaking the law by hiring them without seeing the documentation that the law says the employer must and record.

Yodrak

..... This has been discussed many times before....

I hate it when people say something like that. Excuse me if I wasn't a member when it was discussed or perhaps not in that part of my journey to have to pay attention/read about it, or if I didn't do a super search to maybe find a topic or post that pertains to this subject. .....

Bottom line seems to be a K-1er needs an EAD or EAD stamp in order to legally work in the US after entry, right?

[payxibka 10,045]

fwaguy,

Daisy didn't write, "a legal process for adjusting from K-1 after the 90 days", she wrote, "a legal process for still adjusting status after entry on a K1 if the marriage occured outside the 90 days".

Your substitution of "from" for "after entry on" changes the meaning of what Daisy wrote.

Yodrak

When you say a legal process for adjusting from K-1 after the 90 days, I guarantee that there is nothing in the CFR that will give you this road map. It takes an understanding of how the USCIS views and adjudicates to conclude that this may be a viable alternative.

Well in my attempt to paraphrase I may have changed the meaning but when you restore it back to what Daisy originally meant, my comment becomes even more fitting.

[Yodrak 7]

fwaguy,

I disagree. The INA and the CFR provide a method for a person who is in the USA as a non-immigrant to adjust status on the basis of marriage to a US citizen - submit an I-130 petition and an I-485 based on that petition.

One just has to recognize that a K1 who has been in the USA for longer than 90 days is no longer a K1, and that if the marriage did not occur within 90 days of entry they did not marry as a K1. Should be obvious, but most people get so focused that they don't see the bigger picture.

Yodrak

fwaguy,

Daisy didn't write, "a legal process for adjusting from K-1 after the 90 days", she wrote, "a legal process for still adjusting status after entry on a K1 if the marriage occured outside the 90 days".

Your substitution of "from" for "after entry on" changes the meaning of what Daisy wrote.

Yodrak

When you say a legal process for adjusting from K-1 after the 90 days, I guarantee that there is nothing in the CFR that will give you this road map. It takes an understanding of how the USCIS views and adjudicates to conclude that this may be a viable alternative.

Well in my attempt to paraphrase I may have changed the meaning but when you restore it back to what Daisy originally meant, my comment becomes even more fitting.

[payxibka 10,045]

fwaguy,

I disagree. The INA and the CFR provide a method for a person who is in the USA as a non-immigrant to adjust status on the basis of marriage to a US citizen - submit an I-130 petition and an I-485 based on that petition.

One just has to recognize that a K1 who has been in the USA for longer than 90 days is no longer a K1, and that if the marriage did not occur within 90 days of entry they did not marry as a K1. Should be obvious, but most people get so focused that they don't see the bigger picture.

Yodrak

Duh,

That is what I said... The information is all there but you will not see anywhere in the CFR when it speaks of adjusting status from K-1, a section that says "If you marry outside the 90 days, do not panic. Go to Section xxx.xx.xxx and file a I-130 petition. That what I meant by the ROAD MAP

[Karly-n-Bruce 0]

Karly-n-Bruce,

I hate when people say something like 'I'm too lazy to pay attention or search, but I want you to take your time to explain a FAQ to me again'. You've been a member for 9 months or so and this issue is discussed weekly.

A K1 needs an EAD - card or stamp - in order for an employer to legally hire them. The K1 is working quite legally - they are EA. It's the employer who is breaking the law by hiring them without seeing the documentation that the law says the employer must and record.

Yodrak

I learned when I first joined to search for things before posting any questions otherwise you'll get your head bit off (that is, if the question is asked regularly). When I was reading this thread, a question arose so I figured I would ask it in here and get a response. Big mistake on my part.

Now that I'm in the AOS process, I've been doing my best to read every thread in order to learn more about the process (even the parts that don't pertain to my situation) so that I may help others in answering their questions in the future. I have not read much about the EAD because I didn't apply for one. I thought a K-1er needed an EAD stamp or document (which is true), but I didn't realize if an employer is too lazy to check our documents, you can be hired and legally work without the document or stamp, but the employer is in fact breaking the law in hiring you without proper documentation.

Anyway, I just don't understand why new members (or newbies to a different part of the forum) are consistantly treated rudely and given the cold shoulder when they ask questions. I try my best to politely point them in the right direction or answer their question if I know the answer. I know reading the same questions can get annoying after awhile, but why not treat everyone with the same courteousy you would have treated the very first person who ever asked the same question?

[____ 0]

Karly-n-Bruce,

I hate when people say something like 'I'm too lazy to pay attention or search, but I want you to take your time to explain a FAQ to me again'. You've been a member for 9 months or so and this issue is discussed weekly.

A K1 needs an EAD - card or stamp - in order for an employer to legally hire them. The K1 is working quite legally - they are EA. It's the employer who is breaking the law by hiring them without seeing the documentation that the law says the employer must and record.

Yodrak

I learned when I first joined to search for things before posting any questions otherwise you'll get your head bit off (that is, if the question is asked regularly). When I was reading this thread, a question arose so I figured I would ask it in here and get a response. Big mistake on my part.

Now that I'm in the AOS process, I've been doing my best to read every thread in order to learn more about the process (even the parts that don't pertain to my situation) so that I may help others in answering their questions in the future. I have not read much about the EAD because I didn't apply for one. I thought a K-1er needed an EAD stamp or document (which is true), but I didn't realize if an employer is too lazy to check our documents, you can be hired and legally work without the document or stamp, but the employer is in fact breaking the law in hiring you without proper documentation.

Anyway, I just don't understand why new members (or newbies to a different part of the forum) are consistantly treated rudely and given the cold shoulder when they ask questions. I try my best to politely point them in the right direction or answer their question if I know the answer. I know reading the same questions can get annoying after awhile, but why not treat everyone with the same courteousy you would have treated the very first person who ever asked the same question?

I have to agree with you, but for a different reason. Any athlete will tell you that there's nothing wrong with rehashing what you already know. Having similar questions re-posted can only refresh our knowledge of immigration issues. And I don't mind helping people out at all, as this forum has been of immeasurable help and support to me.

[bszoom42 0]

For those looking for the meaning of 8 CFR 274a.12(a) as it relates to Authorization for Employment, there is a great PDF here.

Simply replace the word Asylee with Fiance(e)...

http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/united_state...D_BCIS_memo.pdf

In summary, what Yodrak and Fwaguy is saying is correct.

[Donna A 4]

if everyone sat around reading the guides then there would be no reason for anyone to be here making posts. were all here to help eachother out.

[Magnolia31 0]

Karly-n-Bruce,

I hate when people say something like 'I'm too lazy to pay attention or search, but I want you to take your time to explain a FAQ to me again'. You've been a member for 9 months or so and this issue is discussed weekly.

A K1 needs an EAD - card or stamp - in order for an employer to legally hire them. The K1 is working quite legally - they are EA. It's the employer who is breaking the law by hiring them without seeing the documentation that the law says the employer must and record.

Yodrak

I learned when I first joined to search for things before posting any questions otherwise you'll get your head bit off (that is, if the question is asked regularly). When I was reading this thread, a question arose so I figured I would ask it in here and get a response. Big mistake on my part.

Now that I'm in the AOS process, I've been doing my best to read every thread in order to learn more about the process (even the parts that don't pertain to my situation) so that I may help others in answering their questions in the future. I have not read much about the EAD because I didn't apply for one. I thought a K-1er needed an EAD stamp or document (which is true), but I didn't realize if an employer is too lazy to check our documents, you can be hired and legally work without the document or stamp, but the employer is in fact breaking the law in hiring you without proper documentation.

Anyway, I just don't understand why new members (or newbies to a different part of the forum) are consistantly treated rudely and given the cold shoulder when they ask questions. I try my best to politely point them in the right direction or answer their question if I know the answer. I know reading the same questions can get annoying after awhile, but why not treat everyone with the same courteousy you would have treated the very first person who ever asked the same question?

I totally agree! Not only that, but some people may have comprehension problems - especially if they are from a foreign country. Yes, everything may be available by looking through the guides but some people just might not understand. You also kinda want "reassurance" at times when you do read something, just to know that you did understand it correctly. When I read the guides, I still post my questions sometimes just to double-check that I did comprehend what I just read. I am on medications for my anxiety which cause poor concentration and reading comprehension so I guess I am also talking about myself here. LOL

[L_n_O 3]

<group hug>