how to best use the 90 days prior to marriage k-1

[Melyssa 0]

the rule is that a couple has to get married within 90 days. This is just a suggestion, but it

is based on experience. You could possibly save yourself a lot of grief and $$$ if you

will step out of your emotions and observe your fiance during this time. You can set the

wedding date towards the end of 90 days. Allow yourself to be a third party observer

looking in. Be alert to red flags and possible issues. Address any issues that arise. You

can end up deeply regretting it, if you choose to overlook problems and just hope

they will resolve themselves. There is a whole lot more to living as a couple than emotion

and feelings of love which can be exaggerated from a long distance relationship. Your

fiance may not express her/his concerns to you in an open direct way. The USA is a

big big dream for many immigrants and some will say anything and do anything to

be here. Dont think that you are immune to being taken advantage of. This is not to say

you live under a cloud of suspicion and doubt. Of course few people would take this

advice, because "they know" their relationship will make it. Dont be afraid to ask

hard questions and even seek pre-marital counseling prior to being married. Most of

all trust your gut. All of us have that little still voice or tug at our spirit that warns of

upcoming disaster, take a long long time to think about it before you get married.

There is nothing wrong with putting a key-logger program on your computer and monitoring

your beneficiaries email for a month. Find out what they are saying to people back home.

a little invasion of privacy is way better than having your life blown apart later, not to

mention the emotional devastation..

hopefully this will be rcvd in the spirit it is given..

thanks

I disagree with this advice. People should know each other well enough before filing the K1. The K1 is not for getting to know someone. That is supposed to be done BEFORE filing the K1.

People could save themselves a lot of grief if only they would do it God's way. Sadly today's method of dating is not ideal and people get married based on feelings instead of foundations that are much deeper than feelings.

[Fandango 1,439]

But that's the thing....while mostly everything you said is 100% factually accurate, I have to disagree with the last 2 lines. It's not a personal opinion that a K-1 is not a 'get to know you' visa.

If you can show me in the Code where it's prohibited, I'll concede.

Well I showed you where it's written in black and white on the USCIS website. If that's not enough, then I dunno what to tell ya.

Edited October 25, 2007 by LisaD

[bakofoil 27]

There's a debate about whether it's RIGHT to use 'intent to marry' when actually there may be a 'test drive' in mind.

Everybody's definition of 'intent' is going to be different. You can intend to cross the street at a certain juncture in the road, but decide at the last minute to walk down another block or two before you actually cross over.

The bottom line is - if both people had intent - but the marriage never takes place and the beneficiary returns to their native country before 90 days is up, there is no 'lawbreaking' going on.

It might not be the grooviest thing in the world, and USCIS sure doesn't want to advocate people use the visa as a 'get to know you' thing, but the fact remains that no LAW has been broken if the marriage doesn't occur and the foreign intended goes home in a timely manner.

Beyond that, I don't think we as members here can advocate or advise anything else. Without interjecting our personal opinions, that is.

There was a definite train of thought in earlier posts that 'some women' were not giving up very much to come to the US for marriage and in fact that was a good enough excuse to use the K1 as a medium to discover whether a particular woman was marriage material.

Of course, much personal opinion has come into play here. Many of us feel that by filing the K1 we have already made the commitment to marry. And of course, there's a possibility that some of us may not actually get married once we get there. Stuff happens, stuff we can never forsee. And i'm not interested in arguing the point about when people actually get married within that 90 day period. I think that particular argument has stemmed from people taking comments too personally and really I have no reason to question their commitment to their partners if mutual agreements are in place.

What has happened in this thread is that because many of us have argued vehemently that the K1 is an afterthought to an existing wish to marry a specific individual, others have argued that actually the K1 and USCIS need not be taken as seriously as we appear to. It's turned into a bit of a mess actually. But my main concern is that we define what the K1 actually is for the sake of people still looking into avenues for bringing people to the US. Is it simply my opinion that it is not ok to court a potential partner after the K1 has been approved? It seems that the K1 can and is used for that purpose. Of course it's not illegal, but surely there is some moral aspect involved here in terms of how we view the role of the beneficiary in all of this.

Edited October 25, 2007 by babblesgirl

[mox 298]

Well I showed you where it's written in black and white on the USCIS website. If that's not enough, then I dunno what to tell ya.

The website is not authoritative. Only CFR Title 8 is authoritative.

[rebeccajo 14]

There's a debate about whether it's RIGHT to use 'intent to marry' when actually there may be a 'test drive' in mind.

Everybody's definition of 'intent' is going to be different. You can intend to cross the street at a certain juncture in the road, but decide at the last minute to walk down another block or two before you actually cross over.

The bottom line is - if both people had intent - but the marriage never takes place and the beneficiary returns to their native country before 90 days is up, there is no 'lawbreaking' going on.

It might not be the grooviest thing in the world, and USCIS sure doesn't want to advocate people use the visa as a 'get to know you' thing, but the fact remains that no LAW has been broken if the marriage doesn't occur and the foreign intended goes home in a timely manner.

Beyond that, I don't think we as members here can advocate or advise anything else. Without interjecting our personal opinions, that is.

There was a definite train of thought in earlier posts that 'some women' were not giving up very much to come to the US for marriage and in fact that was a good enough excuse to use the K1 as a medium to discover whether a particular woman was marriage material.

Of course, much personal opinion has come into play here. Many of us feel that by filing the K1 we have already made the commitment to marry. And of course, there's a possibility that some of us may not actually get married once we get there. Stuff happens, stuff we can never forsee. And i'm not interested in arguing the point about when people actually get married within that 90 day period. I think that particular argument has stemmed from people taking comments too personally and really I have no reason to question their commitment to their partners if mutual agreements are in place.

What has happened in this thread is that because many of us have argued vehemently that the K1 is an afterthought to an existing wish to marry a specific individual, others have argued that actually the K1 and USCIS need not be taken as seriously as we appear to. It's turned into a bit of a mess actually. But my main concern is that we define what the K1 actually is for the sake of people still looking into avenues for bringing people to the US. Is it simply my opinion that it is not ok to court a potential partner after the K1 has been approved? It seems that the K1 can and is used for that purpose. Of course it's not illegal, but surely there is some moral aspect involved here in terms of how we view the role of the beneficiary in all of this.

I don't think it's up to us to moralize on the 'role of the beneficiary'. I'm not even certain I get what that means.

The INA requires the couple have met within the last two years, be free to marry, and have intent to marry. So of course the K1 and USCIS need to be taken seriously.

But I don't see them defining 'courting'. They only define the above mentioned three things.

Well I showed you where it's written in black and white on the USCIS website. If that's not enough, then I dunno what to tell ya.

The website is not authoritative. Only CFR Title 8 is authoritative.

8 CFR 214.2 to be exact.

[bakofoil 27]

I don't think it's up to us to moralize on the 'role of the beneficiary'. I'm not even certain I get what that means.

The INA requires the couple have met within the last two years, be free to marry, and have intent to marry. So of course the K1 and USCIS need to be taken seriously.

But I don't see them defining 'courting'. They only define the above mentioned three things.

No, it's not up to us to moralise on this, nor is up to us to encourage people to misuse a process because it's not sufficiently legally well-defined.

What I meant by the 'role of the beneficiary' is that he/she should not be assumed to be someone who is moving to the US simply to gain because he/she has little to lose by staying in their own country. I also intended this remark to remind people that this isn't just about doing someone a favour and bringing them to the US for a better standard of living, which is also something that has been suggested on this thread.

I'm not going to repeat myself again and again, the fact remains that for many people, petitioners and beneficiaries, this is a process that takes a lot of thought and consideration and people should be aware of all that entails before undertaking the K1 process. But you're right, that kind of detail is not defined by the INA.

[Fandango 1,439]

Ok, let's do it this way.

Have the non-USC go into the interview and say that the USC is going to use the 90 days to 'get to know' the fiance and see what happens.

Seriously, this is really a no brainer and oh so ridiculous that this is still up for interpretation.

[mox 298]

I don't think it's up to us to moralize on the 'role of the beneficiary'. I'm not even certain I get what that means.

The INA requires the couple have met within the last two years, be free to marry, and have intent to marry. So of course the K1 and USCIS need to be taken seriously.

But I don't see them defining 'courting'. They only define the above mentioned three things.

No, it's not up to us to moralise on this, nor is up to us to encourage people to misuse a process because it's not sufficiently legally well-defined.

The process *IS* sufficiently legally well-defined. It's defined in (thanks Rebeccajo ) 8 CFR 214.2. It is by definition sufficiently well-defined, because it addresses the process it's supposed to address. To say it's not sufficiently well-defined because it doesn't support your argument does not strengthen your argument.

Ok, let's do it this way.

Have the non-USC go into the interview and say that the USC is going to use the 90 days to 'get to know' the fiance and see what happens.

Seriously, this is really a no brainer and oh so ridiculous that this is still up for interpretation.

And why exactly would somebody do that?

[Sinergy 3]

Ok, let's do it this way.

Have the non-USC go into the interview and say that the USC is going to use the 90 days to 'get to know' the fiance and see what happens.

Seriously, this is really a no brainer and oh so ridiculous that this is still up for interpretation.

advice was given, if ppl dont care to listen to it, it becomes their prob lisa

[michaelp 0]

The K-1 is a non-immigrant visa and that's why it's easier to get than a K-3. Seattle going to Cebu is definitely doing the right thing before subjecting themselves to the USCIS for any visa process or subjecting themselves to themselves for any LIFE process. Do the due diligence beforehand. Wish I could have done that in my early years.

Anyway, I went there 4 times. We used a video phone and voip phone (almost) continuously. We both didn't want anything but the real thing and we both knew of people that thought dishonesty and scamming were 2 or 3 degrees of better than actually doing it straight up. Still, the embassy held us up because we are all tarred with the same brush.

She arrived on a Sunday. We got the license on Monday and the judge wed us on Tuesday. We just wanted to be married.

[SonoranSongbird 3]

I agree with you. I made a mistake.

Honestly, the post made me uncomfortable and when I saw other people stating their true feelings, I felt like I should too.

I'm sorry.

Don't apologize, Laura. You are entitled to your opinion as well as anyone else on here. You are also entitled to change it.

No one ( especially me) asked for nor wanted an apology.

I am of the opinion that when you take the time to post and add to a discussion ( especially one as emotive as this)-then the OP at least deserves an honest and sincere opinion based on the reading of his post, in it's entirety- that's all.

That's what I did-read the OP's post in it's entirety-read L+N's reply and gave my honest opinion on both.

L+N are entitled to their opinion, so am I, no apologies needed by anyone to anyone; I was honestly intrigued by the change of heart; and commented which is just as much my right as theirs for posting it in the first place....

And my opinion is that there wasn't really much point to your initial response to Laura other than to insult or belittle her. If you disagreed with some advice she gave the OP, stating your reasons for thinking the OP should do something other than what she suggested would have been potentially helpful to the OP. Picking apart her replies for inconsistencies really was not.

[Bob & Kim 0]

Ok, let's do it this way.

Have the non-USC go into the interview and say that the USC is going to use the 90 days to 'get to know' the fiance and see what happens.

Seriously, this is really a no brainer and oh so ridiculous that this is still up for interpretation.

advice was given, if ppl dont care to listen to it, it becomes their prob lisa

Correct. It is everyones' personal decision. We are all adults, know how to read, and must accept any ramifications with the Governement and/or our future spouses. I am surprised so much time and energy was put on beating this topic when we are talking about a small number of folks, whom most of which will return to their country if the relationship doesn't work out in the 90-day period, when we have thousands of illegals coming across the boarder weekly and being called "undocumented citizens" by many of our politicians and USCs. If we want to discuss the morals of the system and those effected by it, we should discuss how our Government gives preference over USCs to big business employment visa processing and premium processing available to many visa types (but not K-1/K-3), a documented alien filing for their spouse to join them, etc.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Bob & Kim

[tmma 467]

I agree with you. I made a mistake.

Honestly, the post made me uncomfortable and when I saw other people stating their true feelings, I felt like I should too.

I'm sorry.

Don't apologize, Laura. You are entitled to your opinion as well as anyone else on here. You are also entitled to change it.

No one ( especially me) asked for nor wanted an apology.

I am of the opinion that when you take the time to post and add to a discussion ( especially one as emotive as this)-then the OP at least deserves an honest and sincere opinion based on the reading of his post, in it's entirety- that's all.

That's what I did-read the OP's post in it's entirety-read L+N's reply and gave my honest opinion on both.

L+N are entitled to their opinion, so am I, no apologies needed by anyone to anyone; I was honestly intrigued by the change of heart; and commented which is just as much my right as theirs for posting it in the first place....

And my opinion is that there wasn't really much point to your initial response to Laura other than to insult or belittle her. If you disagreed with some advice she gave the OP, stating your reasons for thinking the OP should do something other than what she suggested would have been potentially helpful to the OP. Picking apart her replies for inconsistencies really was not.

I explained that part of my initial post to L+N....The change of heart was intriguing.

They made an opinion and put it out there for interpretation, just like I did in my response, and just like you are doing now.

That's a discussion board......Funny how that works, huh?

As for disagreeing with the "good advice" and the OP's 1st post, I did just that-if you had bothered to read past the first half of the same post you would have seen I wrote this-

To the OP I think you are completely out of line. The K-1 is NOT a get to know/trust you visa. You have already stated to USCIS that you intend to marry this person. The K-1 is not granted in order for you to spy and make sure.....It's an abuse of the system and your future wife's right to privacy.

As far as L+N/me go-I think that all got sorted out yesterday-and you would have seen that had you read past the initial posts of ours.

But hey, as late in the day as it is-thanks for your opinion, anyway

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I explained that part of my initial post to L+N....The change of heart was intriguing.

They made an opinion and put it out there for interpretation, just like I did in my response, and just like you are doing now.

That's a discussion board......Funny how that works, huh?

As for disagreeing with the "good advice" and the OP's 1st post, I did just that-if you had bothered to read past the first half of the same post you would have seen I wrote this-

It is a discussion board, but some people here like to apply schoolyard tactics. Chiding someone for stating their opinion amounts to nothing more than schoolyard bullying. Even when a person's opinion might conflict here with a consensus of the truth, there's really no point in pounding someone into the ground over it.

[GeordieWife 1]

hmmm.. The big issue I see with the Key Logging, is two fold..

#1 - It shows lack of trust. I'm in the Computer industry, and when an individual asks me about key logging to monitor a spouse, I always tell them I'm not a divorce attorney, because once you've hit that point, you're on a downward slide very quickly.

#2 - I expect Ann to have conversations with family and friends in the Philippines that are not going to be 100% Positive about me and the USA. She needs somewhere to discuss her frustrations, fears, concerns, and emotions, other than just with me. I don't anticipate her transition to the USA being effortless and without frustration, loneliness, and homesickness. But we also both anticipate those facts, and are prepared to deal with them. So, if I was key logging, I'd just be stealing her relief, and adding to my concerns...Not a healthy situation.

The 90 days to me seems short more from a logistical standpoint. Getting here, getting settled, changing my blank bacehlor pad walls into "a good arrangement", planning a simple wedding, meeting family, and trying to work, will make 90 days go very fast. (Plus adding in buying a rice cooker, proper pot and pans, finding the right kinds of rice and fish...)

Of course, having known Ann for almost 3 years now, we know each others emotions, strengths, weaknesses, fears, finances, and of course she knows how ugly I am..

If we had known each other for only a few months, and then started down the Visa Journey, maybe I would have all of those worries, but then I'd be planning to slow down, and make sure before I bring her here.

I think this post is very well thought out and written, #2 especially sounds like a very very healthy attitude.