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

[no name 1]

Weren't you told not to reply to me?

[mox 298]

I'm done

Me too. I've said everything I have to say, and I tried to present it in a clear and reasonable manner. However, you and LisaD insist on manipulating it to fit your little zingers and sound bites so that you can trade smug little comments between each other. If you were really willing to listen to and comprehend what I and others have said, rather than deliberately misunderstanding, you might still not agree with it, but at least your opinions would at least be a little more informed. I can respect honest disagreements, but I cannot respect deliberate miscomprehension.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

I think most people can distinguish between merely expressing an opinion and bullying somebody else for expressing theirs.

the key word being 'most' Steven...

how true.......

Charles, you obviously know no boundaries & for that I pity you.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

So, let me get this straight...if you are arrogant, condescending & judgemental to a poster here on VJ - and someone else agrees with you - they get a shout out in the thread. How incredibly immature.

*checks Dev's posts*

seems so!

*latherrinserepeat*

[bakofoil 27]

I'm done

Me too. I've said everything I have to say, and I tried to present it in a clear and reasonable manner. However, you and LisaD insist on manipulating it to fit your little zingers and sound bites so that you can trade smug little comments between each other. If you were really willing to listen to and comprehend what I and others have said, rather than deliberately misunderstanding, you might still not agree with it, but at least your opinions would at least be a little more informed. I can respect honest disagreements, but I cannot respect deliberate miscomprehension.

Well I figure I have the right to defend this misrepresentation and personalisation of my part in this debate.

I too can respect honest disagreements. You may have noticed that some of my posts defended your view when some people were missing your point and assuming you were in the same league as the OP. In some of your later posts, you made blanket statements about female beneficiaries, about countries of origin and the ease of displacement and displayed an unwillingness to listen to points that were being made about circumstances relating to both the petitioner and beneficiary's commitment within the K1 application procedure. Points which are highly relevant to the process but which you appear to ignore in favour of standing blinkered by a personal viewpoint on how you and your SO choose to use the 90 days and how that view might be supported legally by documentation. A view I said I didn't disagree with in essence as it is a mutual one. I also stated in a previous post that I have no reason to believe that your commitment to your fiancee is open to question whatsoever. However, I don't recall this debate ever being about you personally. Or about Lisa D or me. The debate isn't really even about the OP anymore.

Rather than being a willful effort to gang-bash you (I am perfectly able to form and articulate my own opinions), my part in this debate was triggered initially by what I thought might be a good thread, i.e. advice about driving licences, SSN's, work experience, getting involved in the community. How the petitioner might cope with helping the beneficiary in those early days of adjustment - which I think you would agree would have been a beneficial thread. One doesn't need to go further than post #1 to see that the thread clearly wasn't going to deliver what it said on the packet.

The thread has since evolved into an honest discussion/debate about what people feel the K1 process is about. Clearly we're not all going to agree. But the main point was about INTENT and I believe Pushbrk's comments clearly and succinctly answered anyone's doubts about what intent actually means despite the fact that various contradictory documentation has been presented. I am certainly not arguing with your point that the document you quoted allows you to bring a fiance(e) to the US and spend the 90 days as you wish and that should you choose not to marry no law is broken. That is fact.

Nor will I argue with Lisa's point about the importance of the letter of intent in the petition stage or the fact that the non-USC would be wise not to state at the interview stage that the USC is using the 90 days following visa issuance as a trial-period. Those points may not have been factually backed up but this is a process which does not objectively bind itself to wording on the document you quoted. Ultimately every application is approved at the whim of a CO who uses a framework of law to guide him/her but who will use subjectivity to decide the fate of your application. You yourself used a good analogy that you would say you liked pink if that was what swayed an approval of your application. If you have been around the VJ site long enough you will have come across a number of couples who didn't present what the CO wanted to hear at interview. People who clearly do have the intent to stay together because they are still waiting ...not 90 days on, but 300, 400, 500 days and more from when they originally hoped to have a K1 visa in hand.

The debate is not just about arguing what is factually true or what untruths can be engineered to fit the application. This process is more than just words on a document. It is an ideological process that involves careful thought and consideration by those involved on how this decision will impact on every aspect of each others lives. Ultimately, there are people here waiting patiently in line to be with the loves of their lives. They don't want a trial period. They trust, respect and love their partners. They are not thinking about their fiance(e) as a potential partner. One doesn't get engaged to someone they are not serious about marrying, you date and take time over that kind of decision. Many have considered the pitfalls, difficulties and merits of being with their loved one and they have started the process of adjustment before visa issuance. Yes, there is always the possibility of being wrong and things not working out quite the way you planned but that can be true of any situation. The point is, you go into this wholeheartedly because you are dealing with not just your own life, but the lives of your partner, yours and their family. It's personal opinion whether you concentrate on ensuring the marriage is a success or focus on what may go wrong and cover your back in the event of a break-up.

The lack of trust shown by some for their partners and negative commentary on their partners life back home just indicates that for some this process is an avenue for 'trying before you buy' and that they have no regard for the impact of this decision on the beneficiary's life back home. It has been evident from a few of the posts on this thread that there is a strain of opinion that some women should be grateful for this opportunity and it's really no biggy whether she has to be sent back home or not. I strongly object to any person being used in this manner. And I guess that view is precisely why the K1 process is as long and involved as it is.

For me, the reason why I have even bothered to respond at all on this thread is that it has highlighted some protection of two important groups of people;

1) beneficiaries from countries deemed to be at some disadvantage by comparison with the US

2) people new to the process looking for information on how to deal with various stages of the application procedure

The advice you are advocating is that the law is so clearly well-defined that it is acceptable to use the 90 day period any way you wish but that is simply not the case and regardless of whether you think I am point-scoring and back-slapping with Lisa or not, she made a very strong and important point. Whilst the document you quote does not define how that period should be used (which also highlights the fact that it is NOT well-defined) and therefore any use of that time period is lawful, the fact remains that the individuals who ultimately make the decisions on K1 petitions do actually expect you to have a well-considered intention to marry within that 90 day period and not use it as a trial period. It's going to take a lot of hassle, time and money to prove to them that actually the document doesn't stipulate a clear intent to marry at all.

For your information I don't even know Lisa. If by agreeing with the rationality of many of her points and disagreeing with some of yours you assume we are in some smug little club together being wilfully "dishonest" and "deliberately misunderstanding" your view well I'm sorry but you appear to have an inability to accept an alternate viewpoint at all. You would have seen had you read my posts in detail that this is not at all my intention.

After all, intention has been what has underpinned this thread and what will ultimately decide the fate of any K1 application.

[rebeccajo 14]

Babblesgirl -

You have entered into a discussion that cannot be won. Perhaps more importantly, there is less intention by some individuals to make salient points than there is to continue an ongoing sociological examination of the perceived traits of certain 'types' of relationships.

I mentioned earlier it isn't our place as posters to define 'intent' categorically without interjecting our personal opinion. This thread is a perfect example of that very thing happening. What 'intent' is - in the eye of one petitioner and beneficiary - may not seem adequate to others. Insofar as immigration is considered, 'intent' can only be defined by the letter of the law - thus my reference to the INA. Case law will further influence any decisions made by a court.

On the other hand, cultural norms and anecdotal experience will influence decisions made by consular officers. It is this stage of the process that many of us seem to be discussing, as there have been many comments about saying thus-and-such or behaving a certain way at the interview.

Suffice it to say there are a number of posters on this site who are apparently fascinated by the relationships between petitioners and beneficiaries of certain nations. The validity of these relationships are often put under the microscope of these posters societal petri dishes for ad nauseum discussion. I believe that is not our intended purpose here. It creates a defensive atmosphere in the community. Unfortunately, that is the intent of some.

[archie07 0]

Babblesgirl -

You have entered into a discussion that cannot be won. Perhaps more importantly, there is less intention by some individuals to make salient points than there is to continue an ongoing sociological examination of the perceived traits of certain 'types' of relationships.

I mentioned earlier it isn't our place as posters to define 'intent' categorically without interjecting our personal opinion. This thread is a perfect example of that very thing happening. What 'intent' is - in the eye of one petitioner and beneficiary - may not seem adequate to others. Insofar as immigration is considered, 'intent' can only be defined by the letter of the law - thus my reference to the INA. Case law will further influence any decisions made by a court.

On the other hand, cultural norms and anecdotal experience will influence decisions made by consular officers. It is this stage of the process that many of us seem to be discussing, as there have been many comments about saying thus-and-such or behaving a certain way at the interview.

Suffice it to say there are a number of posters on this site who are apparently fascinated by the relationships between petitioners and beneficiaries of certain nations. The validity of these relationships are often put under the microscope of these posters societal petri dishes for ad nauseum discussion. I believe that is not our intended purpose here. It creates a defensive atmosphere in the community. Unfortunately, that is the intent of some.

[Seattle2Cebu 0]

you got her number... some people like to pick fights to get attention I think

I'm done

Me too. I've said everything I have to say, and I tried to present it in a clear and reasonable manner. However, you and LisaD insist on manipulating it to fit your little zingers and sound bites so that you can trade smug little comments between each other. If you were really willing to listen to and comprehend what I and others have said, rather than deliberately misunderstanding, you might still not agree with it, but at least your opinions would at least be a little more informed. I can respect honest disagreements, but I cannot respect deliberate miscomprehension.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Seattle2Cebu

[bakofoil 27]

Babblesgirl -

You have entered into a discussion that cannot be won. Perhaps more importantly, there is less intention by some individuals to make salient points than there is to continue an ongoing sociological examination of the perceived traits of certain 'types' of relationships.

I mentioned earlier it isn't our place as posters to define 'intent' categorically without interjecting our personal opinion. This thread is a perfect example of that very thing happening. What 'intent' is - in the eye of one petitioner and beneficiary - may not seem adequate to others. Insofar as immigration is considered, 'intent' can only be defined by the letter of the law - thus my reference to the INA. Case law will further influence any decisions made by a court.

On the other hand, cultural norms and anecdotal experience will influence decisions made by consular officers. It is this stage of the process that many of us seem to be discussing, as there have been many comments about saying thus-and-such or behaving a certain way at the interview.

Suffice it to say there are a number of posters on this site who are apparently fascinated by the relationships between petitioners and beneficiaries of certain nations. The validity of these relationships are often put under the microscope of these posters societal petri dishes for ad nauseum discussion. I believe that is not our intended purpose here. It creates a defensive atmosphere in the community. Unfortunately, that is the intent of some.

I agree Rebecca. However, it was not my intention to win the argument but merely to enter into the overall discussion. I also felt that I should defend the accusation that my posts were dishonest.

In retrospect, I will hold my hands up to focusing perhaps unwisely on what I feel is adequate intent and you are right to point out that this can only be defined by the letter of the law and is otherwise a matter for personal opinion. This was not a willful derailment of the discussion on my part, more an injection of my own view that people be treated respectfully and thoughtfully regardless of their background.

However, as you say, anecdotal experience and cultural norms do play a large part in the outcome of a visa application and therefore it is not wise to advise anyone to rely too heavily on the wording of the INA document when a large part of this process may rely on the subjective opinion of a consular officer as well as objective guidance from the law.

I do feel the importance of this community is to provide good information to those seeking it. Much of that advice is a combination of factual evidence and anecdotal experience.

Thanks for your input. I do feel you and others add a valuable clear-headed and non-personal approach to these types of discussions.

[Seattle2Cebu 0]

Ronald Reagan said trust and verify

This is the question I have-would the OP [ or did the OP] or his fiance go to the interview stating he /they would be using the 90 days as a sort of "trial" period? if so-it would make the letter of intent filed with the K-1 rather redundant, no?

The fact that the visa is good for 90 days pretty much implies a "cooling off" period was anticipated. Otherwise it would be more like 10 or 30 days. Remember that the K-1 dates back to the '80's. I don't know what the filing times were back then, but I'll bet you could get your "foreign bride" into the US within a couple months. Couple that with the fact that there was no internet to exchange emails and photos, plus the high cost of long distance, and you could be meeting someone at the airport who you fell in love with on vacation, but who you really don't know. So I don't think any interviewer would have a problem with the beneficiary saying at the interview that they were going to marry towards the end of the 90 day period. That's what it was designed for.

But that's not what you said at the beginning of this post...You said a " cooling off period"-go to the interview and say that.

This is the question I have-would the OP [ or did the OP] or his fiance go to the interview stating he /they would be using the 90 days as a sort of "trial" period? if so-it would make the letter of intent filed with the K-1 rather redundant, no?

The fact that the visa is good for 90 days pretty much implies a "cooling off" period was anticipated. Otherwise it would be more like 10 or 30 days. Remember that the K-1 dates back to the '80's. I don't know what the filing times were back then, but I'll bet you could get your "foreign bride" into the US within a couple months. Couple that with the fact that there was no internet to exchange emails and photos, plus the high cost of long distance, and you could be meeting someone at the airport who you fell in love with on vacation, but who you really don't know. So I don't think any interviewer would have a problem with the beneficiary saying at the interview that they were going to marry towards the end of the 90 day period. That's what it was designed for.

You can bet your azz that if you said it was a ''trial period' or 'cooling off' period, that you'd never have gotten approved. I think you're being a bit semantical in nature here...because while it's not a problem to marry at the end of the 90, it's not designed for the purpose of 'cooling off'. I mean focking hell, your fiance just got here and you're gonna 'cool off'????

Don't use the 80s to justify marrying a stranger.

And btw, did you actually READ your letter of intent that you signed?

GMTA Lisa.

We're in tune as always, marra

This is about the most embarrassing displays of backslapping I've seen here on VJ....holy moses...

[no name 1]

I think most people can distinguish between merely expressing an opinion and bullying somebody else for expressing theirs.

the key word being 'most' Steven...

how true.......

Charles, you obviously know no boundaries & for that I pity you.

Not related to what is being discussed here but keep trying to stir the pot Charles.

Edited October 26, 2007 by devilette

[pushbrk 12,889]

Ronald Reagan said trust and verify

Yes, but he was talking about an enemy nation, not his wife Nancy. Context is important.

[no name 1]

Ronald Reagan said trust and verify

Yes, but he was talking about an enemy nation, not his wife Nancy. Context is important.

[John and Luda 0]

We've gone round and round about this, but the bottom line is those who choose to use the 90 days for a trial basis are going to have to blow smoke up the governments a** and fool them into thinking otherwise. To each his own, but that's a fact. Illegal? No. Deceptive? Yes. If the CO picks up on it, no visa issued. Plain and simple. Basically, I could care less how somebody does it but let's keep the facts straight once and for all.

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

Babblesgirl -

You have entered into a discussion that cannot be won. Perhaps more importantly, there is less intention by some individuals to make salient points than there is to continue an ongoing sociological examination of the perceived traits of certain 'types' of relationships.

I mentioned earlier it isn't our place as posters to define 'intent' categorically without interjecting our personal opinion. This thread is a perfect example of that very thing happening. What 'intent' is - in the eye of one petitioner and beneficiary - may not seem adequate to others. Insofar as immigration is considered, 'intent' can only be defined by the letter of the law - thus my reference to the INA. Case law will further influence any decisions made by a court.

On the other hand, cultural norms and anecdotal experience will influence decisions made by consular officers. It is this stage of the process that many of us seem to be discussing, as there have been many comments about saying thus-and-such or behaving a certain way at the interview.

Suffice it to say there are a number of posters on this site who are apparently fascinated by the relationships between petitioners and beneficiaries of certain nations. The validity of these relationships are often put under the microscope of these posters societal petri dishes for ad nauseum discussion. I believe that is not our intended purpose here. It creates a defensive atmosphere in the community. Unfortunately, that is the intent of some.