I'm a US Citizen born and bred and believe fully in your right to free speech as well as my own. Do you think you have the right to speak as you will without dissenting opinion? Deal with it.

Different histories of courtship and marriage are considered in the visa process when evaluating bona fides but they don't put one group ahead of the others in line. Some may be subjected to further security checks or asked for additional evidence but they progress to those points with the same priority.

I know going in that my wife's K3 through China is going to take longer than in some countries like England and that our relationship is likely to be scrutinzed more but the timing isn't about priority. It's about workload in Guangzhou.

If you want to cut in line ahead of somebody who met on the internet or a party to introduce J1 visa holders to potential USC mates, you're going to come out bloody. (in a free speech sense)

Have I made my point?

I agree please do something i can't help but wonder if this doens't help the rest of us doing it the "right way" the "legal way" ????

What is illegal and different in 'their way' of doing things???

charisma1 isn't even to the consulate stage yet. Unless I misunderstand his/her writings, I believe they are referring to the petition stage. Perhaps they feel the already married shouldn't have to offer the same proofs as the engaged?

IMBRA asks the petitioner about meeting thru 'brokerage' services. But that question seems to be directed at K1 petitioners and not at K3 or CR1. I'm not exactly sure what hoops charisma would have the 'engaged' jump through to validate their relationship.

The engaged or any who met on the internet or at an immigration party or any other of the list of "other than normal" international couples. Clearly, he/she wants one's that fit his/her definition of "normal international couple" to receive higher priortity all the way through the process. This is the bigotry.

I don't know that I'd call it bigotry. It's the same old argument that's been tossed around here since well before I became a member. The already marrieds are always ticked off about the length of their process compared to the K1's. It's nothing new under the sun.

I never quite 'get' the fuss, but maybe that's because I approached our process from a purely analytical one. About 10 minutes after I realized I was interested in a man from a foreign country, I knew I had a potential problem. It never occurred to me that he and I should just be able to travel freely/live/date/marry without the blessings of some higher authority. I'm always amazed at the postings of those who apparently never had those thoughts. I mean, governments don't have borders for nothing. Who was I to think that just because I fell for a guy from overseas, that I might be given some sort of free pass not even afforded to oil tankers and shippers of international freight?

Anyway - after I studied and researched the visa options, we made our decisions based on that knowledge. We weighed whether or not we wanted a hasty reunification, or the benefits of a visa that comes with a greencard.

I don't understand the wailings of people who made a choice and now don't like it. And if they made the choice without studying the options beforehand - well that's even less reason for sympathy in my book.

All this being said - I do think USCIS/DOS could do a heck of a lot better job at reunification. But right now - this is the hand we are dealt. You look at your options and you make your choices based on that. Wailing to the Gods about the unfairness of it all is just background noise. A marriage wherein the international couple gets a free pass from the US government to work and live here isn't guaranteed by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

If you chose to do it - then play by the rules. Because there is no other playbook.

Actually, it is a small technicality, but you did/still do have the freedom to choose someone from another country without waiting an entire year to be united. Like the ones at the party, you also could have choosen to meet a foreigner who was already in the US. You "chose" to become involved with a foreigner who was not in the US. This is your freedom at choice. All choices, however, have consequences and it doesn't help to complain that the consequences of another's choice are easier than the consequences of your choice. Please don't condemn those who meet their significant foreign other while they are in the US and say it is unfair that they took advantage of that opportunity and you didn't have that opportunity. You did have the same opportunity, but you didn't take it; you chose to become involved with someone who doesn't live in the US. Both are valid choices. Now, you are going through the consequences of that choice - waiting for the paperwork to be processed so that your partner can move to the US. These individuals who are already here, have already gone through that process - they are here legally. If they meet someone and together they decide to have a life in the US, then there are more immigration hoops that they will have to jump through, just like there are more immigration hoops you and your partner will have to jump through.

It does no good to try and blame other couples for the flaws in the system. We were a K-1 couple and we were engaged 13 months because of the length of the process to come here. We met on line and yes, we discussed marriage before we had even met in person. Up until that time I had no interest and absolutely no intention of ever living in the US and am only here because of my husband. Because we chose to go the K-1 route it didn't mean that I loved my 'fiance' less because we weren't yet married. Marriage at a distance involves practical considerations as well as personal ones and we tried to allow for both within our relationship. I would not dare to presume that anyone involved in this process has a greater or lesser right than we did to have the immigration paperwork processed more quickly just because they were married instead of engaged! You suffer from separation regardless, and the system truly is heartless.

That is the real problem - not the couples who wait, not the couples who marry, not the couples who meet outside of the country, nor the couples who meet within the country. The system itself is flawed - broken - and we all suffer through its paroxyms of inefficiency. In a perfect world we would find our perfect partner and everything would fall perfectly into place at the perfect time. Until we have such a perfect world all we can do it is try to make our own little part of it as close to perfect as we can knowing that we won't succeed, hoping it will be enough - and try not worry that someone else who is doing something differently than we are are interfering with our own success.

Yay Kathryn!

Very well said kathryn41

I do not have to deal with it, because I do NOT have a problem with anything you said, including your calling me a bigot or your dissenting opinion, if done without your self-rightous attitude. It is not me who said that your opinions are not welcome in this forum, right? So you can spare your Isaiah Berlin's class on liberty and free speech.

I couldn't care less if you are from China or from the US; I'll never call someone names just because I do not agree with his/her opinion. Free to slam the opinion with arguments and facts; if you can only call people names, I do not think you do your intelligence any justice. Again, feel free to disagree.



This is the point I was making; plus something else.
Like it does not take the same time to get into the US if you are a VWP citizen or a citizen that requires a tourist visa, PERSONALLY (I feel the need to stress this one last time with you so that you do not have to waste further space to say that you'd do otherwise: I get it and appreciate it) I'd apply double or triple standards to the USCIS process, based on the country of origin and as I said, based on the history of the couple in the light of fraud prevention and process optimization. I bet that over the medium term this would result in a FASTER process for all.
It is basically the same reason why they process K-1 visa first, probably. Being easier, they can get out of the way faster, and instead of processing all visa one after the other, the visa centers, prioritize, so that they can optimize internal flows and processes. I do not like that K-1 get approved faster, but that's because I think that an already formed family should have a higher priority, like a husband or wife or parents have a higher priority that a sibling or an uncle/aunt in the petiton process.. But if it serves to have EVERYONE approved faster, then so be it, although I do not like it.

Do you agree or do not agree that if you have never met your wife before and you are filing a petition, it is not the same thing as if you have been married together for many years, in terms of risk potential? One of the forms (forgot which one) asks about marriage brokers; there are some regulations about those type of marriages. How different is that from what I am saying? I am just saying that I would add a few more layers of sophistication to the analysis to include POTENTIAL danger signals without necessarily having to put the general category in the same bunch...
I have nothing against you meeting your wife wherever you like. At the end of the day, this seems to be the trend, nowadays.. But if you met her yesterday online, got married today, and filed a petition tomorrow, and if I wer the US legislators, I would tell you: "Hold on a second, you prove to me that your marriage is bona fide and since the burden of the proof is on you, but the verifying of the evidence is on me, you are going to have to wait slightly longer, because I can approve a clearly sounder case in a shorter time.."

As I said, I think they are already applying this kind of reasoning; CBP officers already do that when judging if you can go in or not. CBP separates US/Canadian passports from other passports when it comes to the waiting lines at the airports. Why couldn't USCIS apply similar rules? Some countries have pre-immigration checks (Ireland, Canada, etc.). Yes, there is DCF, but why not expanding these procedures?

I just think that the USCIS is a very antiquated, inefficient process and although it probably "protects the nation" (still to be verified...), it does it in the worst possible way, which is to separate families for the longest time, irrespective of the risks they pose. On the other hand, they let someone come to the US very easily to form a new family. That does sound strange to me. I'd expand, simplify and speed up the K-3 for all that request it, so that one can more easily come to the US and apply for CR-1 there, if one wants to, without putting such couples at a perceived disadvantage compared to someone who applies for a K-1 to get married in the US...




Absolutely; but it does not seem to go that way exactly, and here I am NOT talking about consulate level, where your argument does apply. I am talking about USCIS level. There it does not matter about where you are from. It is simply first in, first screened. HOWEVER what it seems to me is that it is not normally the case that people from higher-risk marriage fraud countries get a later NOA2 than from low-fraud countries. This is not statistically verified, but just my gut feelings. It seems to me that actually some petitioners from the UK or Canada actually get held up for a hell long time, apparently without reasons (if we have to go by what they tell us).

THEN, it is the consular stage, and what happens there is another story. If I was the legistaltor, I'd put MORE resources and consulates in countries that require more officers, and of course I'd charge more for this stage to offer a better service. This charge would be discounted later down the line somehow if the visa was approved, in order to increase the cost/opportunity for fraudsters.





I think that more checks should be applied to someone who has a higher potential rate of fraud. That is just common sense and serves to protect the country from potential frauds. However bad it may sound, if you have a criminal record, you are going to get questioned longer, right?
Same, if you are likely to engage in a criminal activity, I may want to check upon you longer. I do not see why everyone else should pay (in time and $$) for that.
Also, if you are a USC petitioning for your spouse, you have one treatment. If you are a legal resident, you have ANOTHER treatment. If you are petitioning for direct family, you have one treatment, if you are petitioning for different relatives, you have another. It is ALL about priority and processes. Economics teaches us that resources allocation based on needs & cost/opportunity is the best and fastest way to fix a system. Checks and balances, in order to preserve the security of the system without jeopardizing its equality in front of the law, can take various forms, including differential treatment for different cases. This of course must be mitigated with common sense and a good dose of equality.





I think you have made your point clear, thank you. Hope you also got mine, although you do not have to agree with it.
Peace.

I want people that pose a LESSER risk of visa fraud to get through faster. That already happens, like it or not, call it bigot or not.
Right or wrong, YOUR government, NOT mine... ;-)
I'd just like that formalized more and its own logics brought to their obvious conclusions. And, yes, I think that it is good and normal that -for example- there are VWP countries, that some countries are easier to get a visa etc: there is a reason for that. I guess this is not a popular idea, but we should not be ashamed to have unpopular ideas if we think they are right and make sense.

Your statements indicate you are judging how they met and whether and how long they've been married before beginning the process as part of the criteria for priority processing. That's the bigotry. We agree that more risk requires more scrutiny and that already happens, just not during the USCIS adjudication process.

Some countries are slower due to workload but those tend to be the countries with the most fraud as well.

A bigot -in my dictionary- is someone who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. Looking up previous posts from you, that term seems more applicable to you than to yours truly..

I guess "blockhead" would refer to someone who doesn't get -despite of being repeatedly explained- that judging how two people met and how long they've been married has nothing to do with bigotry but with plain and simple risk-control practices? Again, this is a personal opinion, and you are free to dissent, this is not China.

I see where an oversimplication of the argument would lend itself to being interpreted as "intolerance" (not bigotry), but I expected an intelligent, possibly educated person like you would make that jump and see beyond perceptions...

I also feel that the discussion is degenerating to the point where further arguments do not clarify the points being made, and therefore I shall not post on the subject anymore, at least not in reply to your posts on this specific subject. Like you mentioned in the past with reference to other discussions, if you have some good points to make on the arguments presented and possibly based on facts or at least articulated personal opinions, I'll truly be glad to keep discussing with you.

It's kind of like racial profiling, I guess. Some people see it as bigotry, others just as smart.

I'm not sure I understand the desire to meet a "Western" spouse. Are these people more attracted to Westerners? And if so, there are a lot of countries that are considered the west so why the US? And wouldn't you consider that someone who has the desire to meet a potential spouse of a certain whatever, be it income or homeland, is certainly a greater risk because they have an ulterior motive? It is one thing when someone meets someone else by chance and they strike up a conversation and then begin dating and things flow naturally. But the idea of going somewhere to meet someone from a particular country with the idea of marriage at the forefront seems to put the cart well before the horse and begs one to question their motives.

I guess the right question to ask is, if one of these folks were denied a visa to come to the US, would they gladly go back home (or stay home) and have their US spouse join them in their country?

There are two parts to the scrutiny -- one is the person who meets the foreigner -- they should date long enough to be able to suss out motives and two, is USCIS. While anyone else can wonder about motives, those are the two entities with a great deal of interest in the truth. And for the former, I hope they do their homework and find a wonderful life-time mate. Well, actually, the foreigner too. If you think about it, they may be taking a lot of risk, too if they hook up with (and that's not in today's terms) the wrong person. If your desire is to be in the US, I should imagine that makes you vulnerable especialyl if you aren't aware of your rights.

I can speak to why a divorced Chinese woman with a child would seek a western man pretty easily. They have almost no chance of marrying again in China but there are plenty of "western" (USA, Canada, Australia, UK etc.) men who would be vary happy to love them forever. It's as simple as that. My wife is in the USA because we're married. Within a couple years, we'll be making our primary home in China. It was never about coming to the USA. Thousands do the same for similar reasons every year.

I'd be careful suggesting what other adults should do about courtship and decision making. Most of us have enough problems of our own on that score.

I'd be careful suggesting what another adult should do about posting on this forum... etc.

who cares? How is this any different than people who use matchmakers or belong to the website where they can meet a millionaire??

All that matters if the relationship is real no matter what it's based on. Why is it ok for a rich old coot to marry a young woman who clearly only married him for his money but god forbid someone wants to marry person in a country they want to live. If they are good to each other who cares. Even if they don't last they have the right to have a failed marriage like the rest of the people in the country.

Well, I care. I did not meet my wife through a matchmaker site or at an immigration party. And we're both Russians. And because at our wedding in Russia we had her family, my family that's still in Russia and my parents/sisters who flew in from the US.
So when I hear the "This girl/guy was paid $$$ to marry someone so they can come to this country" I say "Why should my case be stalled by all these people?"

What does that have to do with the immigration parties the OP is talking about? What does that have to do with the idea of people looking for a western spouse because they want to live in the US? Fraud happens in all aspects of life and the honest folk have to suffer for it, getting a visa is no different. However, to say which motivations are appropriate and which ones aren't is bs because people get married for all kinds of reasons.

But they're receiving immigration benefits, it's not like it has no effect on anybody.

People have all kinds of criteria for their potential mate so what if one thing on their list is marry an American?
Who would put on their list - marry a guy who can't support children or provide a nice home?

This is not scamming people, it is just people wanting a better life that they currently have. The US has plenty of room for legal immigrants. I do think the laws should change a little and extend the time people are allowed to get LPR after a divorce and not allow them to petition for anyone from their country for at least 10 years if they divorce.
I think people are naturally jelious if they think someone took an easier route then they had to for immigration. To be honest, I think their sould be a way for people to be together easier if they are going through the Visa process. Why not issue someone a visitor visa once they apply for a spousal visa with the condition that a return flight ticket is purchased upfront and have a bag packed for the interview just in case you are denied you will be escorted to the airport to return home. Or put a tracking device on if denied and give them 30 days to appeal or return home.

We have equal rights under the law.

USCIS is going to process like purpose petitions in the same order and with the same priority regardless of how the couple met. Married couples will go through their appropriate process and fiance(e) petitions will go through their process. USCIS doesn't issue visas. We may call it the visa journey or visa process but USCIS really looks at it as the immigration process. Immigration isn't complete until the intending immigrant is granted permanent resident status. As such, generally an immigrant visa for spouse will be the fastest way to "immigrate" but not the fastest way to be reunited. The fiance process may be the fastest way to be reunited but is not the fastest way to immigrate.

As to the visas, US Consulates treat all like visa applications the same regardless of how the couple met and courted. Additional scrutiny, if any is based on the totality of circumstances, which can include the method of meeting but generally would not be limited to that. Each Consulate processes like visas as is appropriate to their country(s) of responsibility, so the timing and process vary widely.

Those who think their petitions should get special priority because of when, where and how they met, courted and married are not only going to be disappointed but are displaying, IMO "bigoted" behavior and opinions. The appropriate standard is not some individual's view of what is "normal" but rather what is "legal". Welcome to the USA.

charisma -

You write most articulately regarding your feelings. However, feelings aren't facts and much of your argument is flawed based upon apparent misunderstandings of what happens when a visa petition is filed, approved and subsequently applied for. I've bolded the points we need to discuss.

Firstly, certain countries already suffer additional scrutiny for any type of visa issuance. This happens at the consulate level. Why you feel this should also occur at the stateside USCIS level puzzles me. The consulate official has the best opportunity to suss up the immigrant face-to-face at the interview, unlike a paper pushing adjudicator in a cubicle in the US.

Secondly, K1's don't get processed first because they are 'easier'. There are fewer steps in the process which shortens the process. If you would like a better idea of what happens specificially to your physical file in storage as it moves through USCIS, you might seek out the posts of the VJ member huskerkiev, who was a USCIS adjudicator.

Thirdly, you seem to have the opinion that the longer a relationship has been 'in bloom' and perhaps even taken to the level of marriage, that it is less likely to be fraudulent. In the case of real abuse of a claim to family ties insofar as US immigration goes, that couldn't be further from the truth. Google 'marriage fraud' or any like term and you'll find that a true marital 'scammer' is patient - once they have a USC on the hook, they keep them there. After all, a bird in the hand is better than one in the bush. If abusing the affections of a USC is the tactic used to an eventual life in the US, the duration of the relationship doesn't tell the tale.

Your next point - certain countries receiving 'better' treatment at borders. Perhaps the Canadians get that preferential treatment when crossing for a visit - but if they are immigrating here, their process is the same as any other country. Why? Because they are immigrating - not visiting. There's a huge difference. (You might also be interested to learn that Canadian K1's, K3's, and CR1's have a very lengthy wait at the consulate level for interview - this is a case of workload). So they certainly aren't getting preferential treatment because of 'favored nation status' when it comes to a migrant case. And well they should not - being admitted to this country to live here permanently damn well better be treated differently than coming in for a casual visit.

As far as speeding up a K3 and letting the couple do a CR1 later.....this is what a K3 is already. The only difference between K3 and CR1 is the adjustment of status takes place before the immigrant enters the US with a CR1. You're correct in that the K3 could be quicker and at its original conception, it was. Recently it appears the US government is almost treating K3's as CR1's, which is why many people who research before they file choose the CR1.

Going on - again there is no point in stricter stipulations on the bonafides of the marriage at USCIS petition stage. Fraud is best handled at the consulate level, where cultural norms are well known and the CO can evaluate each immigrant face-to-face. "Racially profiling" an entire nation is unfair. The amount of checks done on beneficiaries from 'enemy nations' is already discriminatory without fueling the fire at the desks of adjudicators in the US.

As to your last point - different treatments already exist for different family members. Siblings, parents, aunts and uncles - all come much later than the spouse. How much more segregation would you have in the process?

"Secondly, K1's don't get processed first because they are 'easier'. "

Actually, the ombudsman has documented that the easier an application is to process, the faster USCIS will work on them, often leaving more difficutl cases of the same period to lay untouched for weeks, months or even years.

And, by the same token, since USCIS is funded by throughput rather than making deadlines, processing easier cases gets them a healthier budget than does dealing with more difficult cases.

If the rules were the rules were the rules, your logic would apply. The problem arises because there are differing interests that are competing for limited resources. Therefore, rules get bent to support the system that created the problem in the first place. Fair is not fair in immigration, unfortunately. Fair is whatever USCIS claims it to be.

There's certainly some of that going one but one must be careful not to assume that it is the spouse vs fiance(e) criteria that causes the service center to set aside complicated cases. At the service center level a spouse case is no more complicated than a fiance case. The complications are case specific, not category specific. I've seen plenty of fiance cases take far longer than other fiance cases submitted to the same service center, in the same time frame.

I'm not quite sure where you get the throughput theory, since the first thing the do is cash the check. It's not like they collect more fees later.

It is not my theory -- it is the ombudsman's theory based on his last report to congress. I would expect that he knows what he's talking about (or the old one knew what he was talking about, since we've a new ombudsman.)

Yes, you quoted the Ombudsmans's statement but added your interpretation that "easy" = "K1", not he Ombudsman's theory at all.

Please tell me how the K-1 is on average, as difficult or more difficult than a K-3 or a CR1/IR1. Because if it isn't easier it has to be the same or harder to process, right?

Man. Why not take this reasoning to the logical step and start screening for couples who are likely to end up divorced, anyway? Statistically, that's fifty percent of us. Kick those guys to the back of the line, please! Why should I have to wait those extra few months when Mr. and Mrs. Jo Schmo are going to tie up resources with their immigration petition, only to get divorced a few years later?

Who is going to decide who will bedivorced or not? I wonder if the divorce rate is higher or lower for people who marry a foreign spouse?

Ok, what is being processed at the service center is a petition. An I-129F petition is generally equally difficult to process. What the Ombudsman is referring to is the issues in specific cases of any category that makes those cases more difficult. Some details are in the long thread started by member huskerkiev.

It is true that some/many goverment workers will do the easy stuff on their desk and wait until later to do the hard stuff. In some ways, that's human nature. But on a given day, all the petitions on an adjudicator's desk are likely to be of the same category.

The Ombudsman doesn't say "K1" when he says "easy". That's your misinterpretation.

There are multiple steps on the adjudication of any petition of any category. The case can become "difficult" at any point in the process. At each step there could be a certain period of time that the adjudicator can do nothing but wait for the result of say, a background check or some other verification done by another department. This is all true of each petition category.

Individual service center managers may make (sometimes really stupid and unfair) decisions to work on a single category for some space of time but that's a management decision and again not what the Ombudsman is talking about.

Again, we're talking about USCIS service centers here, not the entire visa process and certainly not the entire immigration and citizenship process. (the C and the I in USCIS). USCIS provides Citizenship and Immigration services, not "Visa Services".

If you want your foreign fiance(e) to live with you in the US as a Citizen, the overall process is going to be far more time consuming and expensive than to bring a spouse you've been married to two years by the time they arrive here. So, the "Service" of Immigration and Citizenship" is going to be measurably simpler for the long term spouse.






What screening steps do you suggest to determine which couples are more likely to be divorced?

What's your assurance you aren't one of them?

Thats prolly the dumbest statement I've ever heard.

That many American men have STD? Anyway, it´s not very nice of you to wish this or anything similar to anybody.

I really don't think you answered the question, pushbrk. You said a lot of words but you didn't indicate how the K-1 is as difficult or more difficult than a K-3 or CR1.

Further, the expense of a K-1 over a K-3 or CR1 only adds to the argument that this is about fees as much as it is about anything else. But the expense up front is low enough and considering that most people would pay a hell of a lot more to have their spouse with them sooner, that the K-1 may be more expensive than the K-3 (because not everyone has 2 years of marriage under their belts before a visa is granted) is a longer-term concern and not an immediate concern. The immediate concern is getting a spouse on US soil.

I answered the question by indicating processing an I-129F petition (That's what USCIS does, not any kind of visa.) is generally equally as difficult as either spouse petition. The few extra minutes an adjudicator may spend looking at any evidence of bona fide relationship, with an I-130 doesn't add difficulty, IMO. Difficulty comes on a case by case basis, not on a petition category by petition category basis because the general information being evaluated is the same.

1. Is the petitioner a US Citizen free to marry (K1) or legally married (K3/CR1)?
2. Has the beneficiary provided evidence they are free to marry (K1) were free to marry (K3/CR1)?
3. IMBRA considerations (K1 and K3 but not for CR1)
4. Did the couple meet in person during the past two years? (K1 only)
5. Name checks for petitioner and beneficiary (both)

Where's the additional difficulty in any of the categories? The way I see it, the "meeting" requirment is additional to the K1 but is sometimes roughly equaled by evaluating bona fide evidence. Often no bona fide evidence is submitted with an I-130 so all that is left to the Consulate.

What's your basis for one category being more difficult to adjudicate than another?

Again, the Ombudsman's statement does not support the I-129F category being the "easy" cases he refers to. That's your misinterpretation.

Peace be with you all. We are here to help & give support to one another. Let us ALL be happy here.

Stay cool VJ FAMILY

Bottomline? Being a judgemental bas+ard towards any one person is the most inappropriate thing. Everyone has different plans and perspectives in life!. Why not be happy for people who are looking for a better life just live everyone else here!. Your Rule: MIND UR OWN BUSINESS!!!!!

By the way, IM THINKING ON HOSTING AN IMMIGRATION PARTY OVER AT MY PLACE!
[/quote]


bravo peace be with us