Not including children on a K1

[mox 298]

I think the fact that you asked the question, by definition, indicates you were considering answering untruthfully.

I didn't see any dishonest intent from the OP at all. There are a lot of forms, and a lot of instructions. This whole process can make you absolutely freaking crazy. Sometimes the right answer doesn't jump out at you, even if the instructions are clear, because when you're hip deep in paperwork it's hard to see the trees for the forest. So I can understand why the OP asked the question, even if the answer seems clear after further review. I can also understand why the OP might think to leave the children off, if they're not going to be part of the application. Sometimes what's clear to one person may not be clear to another.

It's all good.

[visceral image 0]

I think the fact that you asked the question, by definition, indicates you were considering answering untruthfully.

I didn't see any dishonest intent from the OP at all. There are a lot of forms, and a lot of instructions. This whole process can make you absolutely freaking crazy. Sometimes the right answer doesn't jump out at you, even if the instructions are clear, because when you're hip deep in paperwork it's hard to see the trees for the forest. So I can understand why the OP asked the question, even if the answer seems clear after further review. I can also understand why the OP might think to leave the children off, if they're not going to be part of the application. Sometimes what's clear to one person may not be clear to another.

It's all good.

Thank you

[pushbrk 13,211]

Thanks for the answers, just a clarification; we have no plans to lie or to put any dishonest information on the petition. The wait is long enough without taking any chances that would make it longer or would result in denial.

I think the fact that you asked the question, by definition, indicates you were considering answering untruthfully. Perhaps you misunderstood, "13. List all children of your alien fiancé(e) (if any)".

The words "if any" are key to the answer to your question.

with all due respect, are you nuts; I have never lied and never plan to start; I was asking for clarification and information; not as a prelude to being dishonest

pushbrk, please remember my name and do not respond to any future post that I make; I do not need your input and do not desire to have your views. yes, I am upset; you have insulted me

Nope, not nuts.

I'm explaining the reaction. Nobody here knows you. They only see what you write. Now that you've written that you were only asking for clarification, I accept that. If you can't understand the natural interpretation of your question by the responses you received, don't put that on anybody else.

You have your clarification.

[Tinker 0]

I put both my 19yr old and my 23yr old on the application, it asks for children's names.

My packet 3 included the 19yr old, but I just emailed them, then told them again at the interview, she was not coming with me. There wasn't a hold up or any problems.

Edit: Missed the last few posts I wondered the same thing, do you put them down or not, if they aren't coming. *shrug*... everything worked out fine the way I did it

Edited September 17, 2007 by Tinker

[pushbrk 13,211]

I think the fact that you asked the question, by definition, indicates you were considering answering untruthfully.

I didn't see any dishonest intent from the OP at all. There are a lot of forms, and a lot of instructions. This whole process can make you absolutely freaking crazy. Sometimes the right answer doesn't jump out at you, even if the instructions are clear, because when you're hip deep in paperwork it's hard to see the trees for the forest. So I can understand why the OP asked the question, even if the answer seems clear after further review. I can also understand why the OP might think to leave the children off, if they're not going to be part of the application. Sometimes what's clear to one person may not be clear to another.

It's all good.

I run into similar problems with my wife. "Lie" seems to directly translate to a word that equates to a serious character flaw rather than simply being untruthful. When I explained that to lie is simply to be untruthful, it seemed to take on a whole new meaning.

Of course there is the whole intent thing to deal with too. I didn't mean to imply that the OP intended to lie but that they were considering filling out the forms in a manner that would end up being untruthful, because, they misunderstood the "if any" instructions. The question doesn't ask about immigrant intent. It is biographical.

I didn't presume the OP was scheming a lie, just that the response they were obviously contemplating (asking for clarification about) if used, would BE untruthful. We get a lot of these questions. Sometimes people just don't understand the questions enough to know the difference between an answer that is true and one that is not. No need to be overly sensitive.

The hard fact is that even if the children's overstays would have a negative impact on the mother's visa process, the children must be listed. From some countries, a later family composition sheet is required that will ask for current addresses and visa status (if any) for all family members.

From those countries, the error of thinking "Well they're not coming to the US in connection with her visa application, so I won't list them." would result in a major complication down the road and we'd be getting a question like, "I didn't think I needed to list the kids on the I-129F, but now they are asking about all family members and their current addresses. She has two kids in the US who are out of legal status. What do I do now?"

There are two key principles to keep in mind throughout the process. Interpret instructions in the simplest literal way possible and always respond with accurate information. The chips will fall where they may but they are more likely to fall unfavorably when material facts are misrepresented. (Regardless of intent.)

Unfortunately, misunderstandings and misinformation often result in honest people giving untruthful answers, unintentionally.

[1HappyGuy 45]

The 21 year old will not be able to come to the US without their own visa, so placing that childs name on the application doesn't really matter. The younger one, however, is eligible to come up to one year after the issuance of the parent's visa. So, definitely include that child on the application.

In my case, we had omitted my wife's son because his plans were to continue his education. We discovered later that he would not have gotten the better education he was promised due to cuts in the program. We filed for his K-2 and it was granted 11 months after his mothers. So, it can be done, even if they are omitted from the original petition. Our government wants to keep families together as much as possible, but with the caveat that they should be under 21 at the time of visa issuance.

[pushbrk 13,211]

The 21 year old will not be able to come to the US without their own visa, so placing that childs name on the application doesn't really matter. The younger one, however, is eligible to come up to one year after the issuance of the parent's visa. So, definitely include that child on the application.

In my case, we had omitted my wife's son because his plans were to continue his education. We discovered later that he would not have gotten the better education he was promised due to cuts in the program. We filed for his K-2 and it was granted 11 months after his mothers. So, it can be done, even if they are omitted from the original petition. Our government wants to keep families together as much as possible, but with the caveat that they should be under 21 at the time of visa issuance.

Again, the I-129F asks you to list the children of the beneficiary. They are to be listed whether they are immigrating or not and regardless of age. To not list them is to misrepresent a material fact. However, as you know, failure to list them does not mean they can't be added later.

Your interpretation is evidently a common error with no real consequence but an error just the same.

Let's also distinguish between an "application" and a "petition". The I-129F asks you to list the children regardless. The DS 230 visa application asks both to list all children then later to say which ones will accompany the applicant.

Edited September 17, 2007 by pushbrk

[Bill y Bella 0]

The 21 year old will not be able to come to the US without their own visa, so placing that childs name on the application doesn't really matter. The younger one, however, is eligible to come up to one year after the issuance of the parent's visa. So, definitely include that child on the application.

In my case, we had omitted my wife's son because his plans were to continue his education. We discovered later that he would not have gotten the better education he was promised due to cuts in the program. We filed for his K-2 and it was granted 11 months after his mothers. So, it can be done, even if they are omitted from the original petition. Our government wants to keep families together as much as possible, but with the caveat that they should be under 21 at the time of visa issuance.

I am glad everything worked out for you, but I think that is very bad advice. The I-129F petition does not ask for the names of the beneficiary's children who might want a visa. It asks for the names of the beneficiary's children. To me that means if the benenficary has children they should be listed and it does not matter if they want a visa or not.

I assume USCIS wants to know the names of the children for several reasons, one of which is that they will probably check to see if the names of older children show up on any watch lists. Sounds like a good idea to me.

In any case, the embassy has the right and perhaps the obligation to deny the visa application if they discover false or incomplete information on the I-129F petition. Why take that chance?