This really pissed me off!!!

[vbtbmrt 2]

i also met my wife online and was on my way to her in couple month and was married and now i am so very happy i did.but if i would of known about immigration parties it would of saved me airfare from having to fly. but thats sounds like a wonderful idea with having a party my self.

like pushbrk said it dont matter how you meet it is how you pursue after, if you agree to marry to defraud then you need go to jail and be deported. as for the women getting preggy to just to beable to stay it happens if you dont protect your self and then there is no one to blame.

[rebeccajo 14]

There are no algorithms or any other mathematical bar that must be crossed to prove relationship bonafides. K1, K3 or CR1.

A couple already married can be in just as fraudulent of a relationship as a couple intending to marry. So let the rumor be dispelled that having already taken your vows somehow entitles you to a better process.

If you wanted a faster process you should have filed first then married later. That's the bottom line and bellyaching about the choice you made is pointless.

As long as the K1 exists in its present form, it will be a faster visa than an immigrant spousal visa simply because there are fewer steps to the visa itself. Personally I'm sick and tired to death of the separated married thinking they are 'better' than the 'engageds' simply because they are already married. I've seen loads plenty of already married couples on this forum where the foreign born spouse was clearly into the marriage for fraud. The simple fact a couple is already married doesn't give their case a pre-emptive green light. That kind of logic is flawed.

[Nagishkaw 510]

There are no algorithms or any other mathematical bar that must be crossed to prove relationship bonafides. K1, K3 or CR1.

A couple already married can be in just as fraudulent of a relationship as a couple intending to marry. So let the rumor be dispelled that having already taken your vows somehow entitles you to a better process.

If you wanted a faster process you should have filed first then married later. That's the bottom line and bellyaching about the choice you made is pointless.

As long as the K1 exists in its present form, it will be a faster visa than an immigrant spousal visa simply because there are fewer steps to the visa itself. Personally I'm sick and tired to death of the separated married thinking they are 'better' than the 'engageds' simply because they are already married. I've seen loads plenty of already married couples on this forum where the foreign born spouse was clearly into the marriage for fraud. The simple fact a couple is already married doesn't give their case a pre-emptive green light. That kind of logic is flawed.

Very well said RJ, and I totally agree with you on this one.

[Karaoke 0]

Well, it does not make or break my day to advance my case with you or not. Call me a relationship bigot because my point perhaps doesn't fit with your way of meeting your wife or idealistic model of marriage fraud detection.

However that is what I think and I appreciate your acknowledging it without telling me what is ok here and what it isn't: free to tell me what is ok or not for you. Not sure if where you belong there is such thing as "free speech" and freedom of opinion. Where I hail from, that is basics. I know China is not really big on respecting dissenting opinion, but hey, thank goodness we are still petitioning to a free country!

I wasn't hoping to convince you, just to make sure that my point is understood.

Yes, I absolutely think that different histories of courtship/marriage should be treated differently at an INQUIRY/CHECK level, because that in my opinion would be the only way to make the process more efficient and effective.

I didn't say that K-1 cannot be normal couples. I just said that it annoys me that they are approved before already married couples, and that is a totally different issue from marriage fraud.

As to "normal international couple", I used the term with reference to marriage frauds/mail-order brides/wanna get married to get a green card kind of couples, basically people that get married just to get US residence/citizenship, people that get married without ever meeting, people that have known each other for 2 weeks online before getting married and filing a petition. In my opinion, that is NOT a normal international couple, and although it could happen and be totally fine, legit, absolutely loved-based and disinterested, statistically, that would probably be an exception.

Normally such relationships would raise doubts about the bona fide nature of marriage, and therefore should be treated differently from other, just because they require further checks. I think part of the focus of the job of the adjudicator is to establish that this bona fide relationship exists, and therefore separating in the adjudication process different modalities of relationships/marriages, countries with high rates of fraud, etc. (even if this could run various risks of endangering the equality of the process), could be a way of optimizing time and resources, putting more controls where more controls are needed from a statistical point of view. Eventually this would up the process for all legit applicants and would.

I am sure that adjudicators already have risk analysis models and algorithms, but if we have to go by the time they adjudicate and listening to some of the stories of people on these forums, there still seems to be lots of ground to cover to make them more reliable, functional and especially speedy and just for all.

This is similar to policing and legislating: we are all equal in front of the law, but it does not mean that you would want to use limited resources in the same way, irrespective of the goals we want to achieve and the statistical observations or realities underlying them.

I hope I made my point clearer. Thanks for a chance to clarify a comment that might have been wrenched out of its meaning otherwise.

What constitutes a "normal international couple" and why do K1 couples not qualify as normal international couples?

Call me an egoist, but I do not really give a toss. Whether they get caught or not, it is not my business. Of course it ticks me off big thing that there are so many marriage scams, especially from a few countries, that slow down the whole process for everyone... If I was the legislator, I'd single them out for extra checks, but not at the expense of everyone else. This dual-speed system is basically what is already in place with Visa-Waiver and visitors' visa regulations, isn't it?

Why some countries do not get offered Visa Waiver rights? Because they are perceived as "high risk"...

All I care is that us, normal international couples, do not get disadvantaged and get lower priority than K-1 applicants... That REALLY ticks me off!

Hello everyone. I have been a lurker on this site for a few months now. I'm not really much of a chatter but I overheard something really disturbing a few hours ago at work, so i have to vent a little. One of my co-workers (that i really dont know very well) was telling another co-worker that one of his friends invited him to this party where he said there will be a bunch of women with J visas looking for American citizens to marry so they can come here and live permanently ...If I'm not mistaken, he called it an "immigration party."... This just pissed me the heck off!!! Though I'm not really that surprised....

I'm afraid you haven't advanced your case. You made a long list of what isn't normal without saying what is. Your relationship bigotry is showing. Nobody wants fraudulent relationships to clog up the system but you seem to want to treat cases differently based on how the couple met and courted. This is relationship bigotry and has no place here.

If you think people who court on the internet a few weeks and marry on the first visit should be treated differently than those who meet and court more traditionally, I'm afraid I'm going to have my five foot nothin Chinese wife take you out to the woodshed for a session of whoopash.

Oh, you met on the internet, back of the line with you, indeed.

[Jenn! 918]

Yes, I absolutely think that different histories of courtship/marriage should be treated differently at an INQUIRY/CHECK level, because that in my opinion would be the only way to make the process more efficient and effective.

I would say it's definitely taken into consideration at the consulate level, depending on which consulate you're going through.

[pushbrk 12,245]

Well, it does not make or break my day to advance my case with you or not. Call me a relationship bigot because my point perhaps doesn't fit with your way of meeting your wife or idealistic model of marriage fraud detection.

However that is what I think and I appreciate your acknowledging it without telling me what is ok here and what it isn't: free to tell me what is ok or not for you. Not sure if where you belong there is such thing as "free speech" and freedom of opinion. Where I hail from, that is basics. I know China is not really big on respecting dissenting opinion, but hey, thank goodness we are still petitioning to a free country!

I wasn't hoping to convince you, just to make sure that my point is understood.

Yes, I absolutely think that different histories of courtship/marriage should be treated differently at an INQUIRY/CHECK level, because that in my opinion would be the only way to make the process more efficient and effective.

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?

[nunyab 0]

you might want to write a letter to your senator or to USCIS because we are all made to suffer and might even have our petitions denied because of such things

i would make sure some form of Immigration would be told of things like this and where, they might just want to POP in undercover and help a little

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" ????

[DanielParul 50]

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???

[rebeccajo 14]

Yes, I absolutely think that different histories of courtship/marriage should be treated differently at an INQUIRY/CHECK level, because that in my opinion would be the only way to make the process more efficient and effective.

I would say it's definitely taken into consideration at the consulate level, depending on which consulate you're going through.

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.

[pushbrk 12,245]

Yes, I absolutely think that different histories of courtship/marriage should be treated differently at an INQUIRY/CHECK level, because that in my opinion would be the only way to make the process more efficient and effective.

I would say it's definitely taken into consideration at the consulate level, depending on which consulate you're going through.

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.

[rebeccajo 14]

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.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Whatever happened to freedom and basic things like living with your spouse?

Your points are well taken but the freedom you mention never existed, so nothing happened to it. We've always had immigration laws.

I meant freedom for those folks to go to the parties and meet whoever they want. Freedom to choose someone from another country without waiting an entire year to be united as well. I think we could all live with 3 months wait and go thru the processing etc., but what's happening at VSC is just not right or humane....I guess it's true that in the end we get used to anything..It's not like anybody outside of our small community cares either.

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.

[rebeccajo 14]

Yay Kathryn!

[DanielParul 50]

Very well said kathryn41

[Karaoke 0]

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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)

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.

Have I made my point?

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.