PLEASE HELP US! K-1 QUESTIONS

[rebeccajo 14]

Jeez.

Ok - the OP needs to do a lot more research before she moves forward. And that research has nothing to do with how her British Soldier should enter the US. (For what it's worth, I think any British serviceman in uniform with some evidence of his next duty station would have no trouble being admitted for his wedding to a US Citizen.)

I think it'd be a good idea for the OP to find out just how the British government will feel about someone who is not a British Citizen living on a British military base. It may be no problem whatsoever. But......

As was casually mentioned in a couple of places, no alien can marry a British citizen on British soil without either a fiancee visa or a spousal visa. (This is a fairly recent development in the law btw and has nothing to do with any ancient principles).

Even after they enter, aliens must obtain 'leave to remain' in the UK.

I imagine the fact that this gentleman is serving in Her Majesty's service affords him some advantages, but I would like the OP to research and discover what if any requirements there may be of her to live on base with her husband. She may find there are none - she may find the requirements are not unlike that of any alien wishing to live in the UK.

And for the record I would like to add that obtaining a K1 to enter the US, marry and return to the 'homeland' is not unnecessary (as has been stated). Not everybody can use the VWP. Not everybody can get a tourist visa. There is nothing written into the K1 that says it is 'designed' for those who intend to adjust status. Adjusting status is an advantage to K1 entrants, not a requirement. it's not an expectation of the US government that adjustment be accomplished.

[pushbrk 13,959]

Jeez.

Ok - the OP needs to do a lot more research before she moves forward. And that research has nothing to do with how her British Soldier should enter the US. (For what it's worth, I think any British serviceman in uniform with some evidence of his next duty station would have no trouble being admitted for his wedding to a US Citizen.)

I think it'd be a good idea for the OP to find out just how the British government will feel about someone who is not a British Citizen living on a British military base. It may be no problem whatsoever. But......

As was casually mentioned in a couple of places, no alien can marry a British citizen on British soil without either a fiancee visa or a spousal visa. (This is a fairly recent development in the law btw and has nothing to do with any ancient principles).

Even after they enter, aliens must obtain 'leave to remain' in the UK.

I imagine the fact that this gentleman is serving in Her Majesty's service affords him some advantages, but I would like the OP to research and discover what if any requirements there may be of her to live on base with her husband. She may find there are none - she may find the requirements are not unlike that of any alien wishing to live in the UK.

And for the record I would like to add that obtaining a K1 to enter the US, marry and return to the 'homeland' is not unnecessary (as has been stated). Not everybody can use the VWP. Not everybody can get a tourist visa. There is nothing written into the K1 that says it is 'designed' for those who intend to adjust status. Adjusting status is an advantage to K1 entrants, not a requirement. it's not an expectation of the US government that adjustment be accomplished.

There may well be issue to deal with on the UK side for the USC then spouse but those are not US immigration issues.

A K1 visa is unnecessary for marraige and return to homeland, for anybody who has other legal means for entering the US. After all, that's the context of this thread's discussion. I expect it's rare that people go through the K1 process with no immediate immigrant intent but sure, it's possible. Earlier today in another thread, somebody posted who had done just that but apparently didn't actually realize that's what they were doing at the time.

[rebeccajo 14]

Jeez.

Ok - the OP needs to do a lot more research before she moves forward. And that research has nothing to do with how her British Soldier should enter the US. (For what it's worth, I think any British serviceman in uniform with some evidence of his next duty station would have no trouble being admitted for his wedding to a US Citizen.)

I think it'd be a good idea for the OP to find out just how the British government will feel about someone who is not a British Citizen living on a British military base. It may be no problem whatsoever. But......

As was casually mentioned in a couple of places, no alien can marry a British citizen on British soil without either a fiancee visa or a spousal visa. (This is a fairly recent development in the law btw and has nothing to do with any ancient principles).

Even after they enter, aliens must obtain 'leave to remain' in the UK.

I imagine the fact that this gentleman is serving in Her Majesty's service affords him some advantages, but I would like the OP to research and discover what if any requirements there may be of her to live on base with her husband. She may find there are none - she may find the requirements are not unlike that of any alien wishing to live in the UK.

And for the record I would like to add that obtaining a K1 to enter the US, marry and return to the 'homeland' is not unnecessary (as has been stated). Not everybody can use the VWP. Not everybody can get a tourist visa. There is nothing written into the K1 that says it is 'designed' for those who intend to adjust status. Adjusting status is an advantage to K1 entrants, not a requirement. it's not an expectation of the US government that adjustment be accomplished.

There may well be issue to deal with on the UK side for the USC then spouse but those are not US immigration issues.

A K1 visa is unnecessary for marraige and return to homeland, for anybody who has other legal means for entering the US. After all, that's the context of this thread's discussion. I expect it's rare that people go through the K1 process with no immediate immigrant intent but sure, it's possible. Earlier today in another thread, somebody posted who had done just that but apparently didn't actually realize that's what they were doing at the time.

Well, the "UK" side of things indeed has nothing to do with US immigration law. But I'd feel derelict in my 'duty' around here if I didn't mention something that's pertinent to the happy life of the couple.

And 'intent' in the context it matters is intent at the border on last entry. This gentlemen has no intent on this proposed entry. Indeed, I contend he hasn't any discernible intent at all. He and his American fiancee have a long-range plan that could change.

Honestly is always the best policy at the border. I see no reason for this gentleman to be denied if he told the WHOLE truth. It's a perfect example of every case being different.

Edited February 3, 2009 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 13,959]

Honestly is always the best policy at the border. I see no reason for this gentleman to be denied if he told the WHOLE truth. It's a perfect example of every case being different.

I don't either but it isn't necessary, just the same.

[rebeccajo 14]

Honestly is always the best policy at the border. I see no reason for this gentleman to be denied if he told the WHOLE truth. It's a perfect example of every case being different.

I don't either but it isn't necessary, just the same.

So if it's not necessary to be anything less than forthcoming, why not be forthcoming?

See - here's my point.

There's been a whole lot of arguing here about who is right and who is wrong when talking about 'honesty'. Some of the discussion comes from what's 'right' or 'wrong' for VJ.

I don't think it matters who is 'right' or 'wrong' on that count. I think what matters is a thorough consideration of what is likely for this couple, and what obstacles they may or may not face. If there are no obstacles, let's not have a debate over them.

Every case is different. 'Vanilla' advice is - well - just silly.

[pushbrk 13,959]

Honestly is always the best policy at the border. I see no reason for this gentleman to be denied if he told the WHOLE truth. It's a perfect example of every case being different.

I don't either but it isn't necessary, just the same.

So if it's not necessary to be anything less than forthcoming, why not be forthcoming?

See - here's my point.

There's been a whole lot of arguing here about who is right and who is wrong when talking about 'honesty'. Some of the discussion comes from what's 'right' or 'wrong' for VJ.

I don't think it matters who is 'right' or 'wrong' on that count. I think what matters is a thorough consideration of what is likely for this couple, and what obstacles they may or may not face. If there are no obstacles, let's not have a debate over them.

Every case is different. 'Vanilla' advice is - well - just silly.

Opinions vary. I think it's not necessary to open yourself to additional questions when simple honest answers will get you waived through in a couple seconds, particularly if traveling in uniform. The choice is his and that's been covered many times over already.

What matters seems to be determined by each poster based on their own judgment without regard for yours or mine.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

As the OP has pretty clearly outlined in their orginal post, a K-1 is not even an option since she doesn't know when he will be deployed. It doesn't matter if he enters on VWP or a K-1 if he has to turn around and leave 2 weeks after the wedding.

[rebeccajo 14]

As the OP has pretty clearly outlined in their orginal post, a K-1 is not even an option since she doesn't know when he will be deployed. It doesn't matter if he enters on VWP or a K-1 if he has to turn around and leave 2 weeks after the wedding.

No intent to immigrate.

IMO - no reason to worry about 'additional questions' at the border. Because the 'truth' that CBP is interested in - is clear.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Yes, I realize that but - they intend to immigrate at some point but can't do so within the limits of a K-1 visa because it becomes invalid when the recipient leaves without AP, a definite risk for the OP's fiance given what she has told us so far.

Why people keep bringing it up as an option for her is beyond me for this reason.

If he says at POE he is coming to visit family or his fiance without volunteering the info about a wedding he is not committing visa fraud. If the question happens to come up and he says no, then he is although I doubt very much that it would come back to bite him at a later stage. I mean, it took USCIS 8 months to figure out if the FBI had a criminal record on my husband - I doubt they are spending time cross-referencing POE data statements with information on a visa application looking for reasons to reject you.

[rebeccajo 14]

Yes, I realize that but - they intend to immigrate at some point but can't do so within the limits of a K-1 visa because it becomes invalid when the recipient leaves without AP, a definite risk for the OP's fiance given what she has told us so far.

Why people keep bringing it up as an option for her is beyond me for this reason.

If he says at POE he is coming to visit family or his fiance without volunteering the info about a wedding he is not committing visa fraud. If the question happens to come up and he says no, then he is although I doubt very much that it would come back to bite him at a later stage. I mean, it took USCIS 8 months to figure out if the FBI had a criminal record on my husband - I doubt they are spending time cross-referencing POE data statements with information on a visa application looking for reasons to reject you.

I didn't bring up the K1 as an option for the OP.

Some statements were made in the discussion about K1 being unnecessary (for couples who don't intend to live in the US) because that's what the VWP and visitors visas are for. I only referenced the K1 to clarify that such a broad statement leaves out some situations.

I think what some posters were getting agitated about (about lying at POE) comes from whether or not it's bad for VJ to give the sort of advice Push gave. Frankly, I've seen the same advice here often, and from members with an 'older' status that his.

Personally - I'm VERY paranoid about mis-statements at point of entry. During the time we spent hung up in namecheck (also lengthy as was yours) I read and researched a LOT about immigrants rights. The topic still fascinates me. I do believe CBP officers are good people who do a good job. But I also realize that a single misstep at point of entry can bar an alien for life. The word of a CBP officer cannot be refuted in a court of law. I respect that authority they have been given and don't take it lightly.

Call it paranoia if you like. I've just read too much to convince me to think otherwise.

Edited February 3, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Well, I think push's advice should probably come with caveats, but the scare-mongering is OTT. I don't see why anyone should believe that not stating everything on a given itinerary for a trip is somehow "breaking the law" when they aren't trying to get around immigration law. If the someone broke no laws with "intent to immigrate" on their statements at POE I don't see why they would have any reason to worry later in the process, as illustrated by countless others with first-hand experience of doing exactly that.

Edited February 3, 2009 by rkl57