This really pissed me off!!!

[Karaoke 0]

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.

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.

[pushbrk 12,245]

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.

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.

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.

[Karaoke 0]

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.

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.

[Jenn! 918]

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

[MsZ 6]

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.

Edited June 9, 2008 by MsZ

[pushbrk 12,245]

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.

Edited June 9, 2008 by pushbrk

[MsZ 6]

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

[Rocketta 0]

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.

[A_I_S 0]

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?"

[Rocketta 0]

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.

[DanielParul 50]

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.

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.

[Jenn! 918]

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.

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

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

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.

[pushbrk 12,245]

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.

[rebeccajo 14]

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.

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?

Edited June 9, 2008 by rebeccajo