Question for all CSC transferees

[toddHill 0]

K1 as well

[kml_36 0]

K1 trasferee here as well

[Roosterwife 0]

OK, well it seems that it's unanimous - to be transferred to CSC you have to have entered on a K visa. Oh well... looks like it's not gonna happen for an H1-B like me.

But thanks for all your responses, guys.

[kaffykat 0]

I was a k1 and my daughter k2 we have both been transferred to CSC.

My thoughts on the transfers, maybe it has something to do with the FBI name search? I know that my previous surname was not a common one, maybe making it a quicker process, just wondering if there were any smith or brown type names that got transferred.

I think about this process way too much.

[KarenCee 3]

My husband entered on a K1 too.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I entered on a K-1 and was transferred to California as well.

[Waiting in Vancouver 6]

I was a k1 and my daughter k2 we have both been transferred to CSC.

My thoughts on the transfers, maybe it has something to do with the FBI name search? I know that my previous surname was not a common one, maybe making it a quicker process, just wondering if there were any smith or brown type names that got transferred.

I think about this process way too much.

Ya I was wondering if it had to do with uncommon surnames as well meaning a speedy name check with FBI ... My last name is so uncommon that anyone with the same last name as me in North America is related to me ...

My husband entered on a K1 too.

I didn't relise that you guys get transfered to CSC as well ...

[Peter Miami 0]

Big Boss,

Read this thread.

Peter Miami

[M. 0]

My husband on a K-1.

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the FBI and everything to do with having already proved a bonafide relationship within the last few months on the K-1 visa. Essentially, it'd make perfect sense that if you've already provided enough evidence to get into the country on a K visa, a second interview would be overkill, and since the majority of K visas transfered are those who adjusted fairly quickly and are usually (though not always) from "low risk" countries, it makes sense.

Also, someone mentioned in another thread that K visas used to not have to interview afterwards, that a marriage certificate used to be all the proof needed for a k-1 to AOS, as you'd previously proven all the points of the usual AOS interview. Transferring all of these fairly straightforward cases to CSC is the closest equivilant of said system.

Common sense, really. I know it's rare to see something that seems to have such a straight-forward answer when dealing with the government, but that seems to be the explanation.

[calOC 0]

M.,

What you described make sense. I wonder though, why would they not transfer K-3s. They already have marriage certificates and have been interviewed and scrutinized just like K-1 applicants.

My husband on a K-1.

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the FBI and everything to do with having already proved a bonafide relationship within the last few months on the K-1 visa. Essentially, it'd make perfect sense that if you've already provided enough evidence to get into the country on a K visa, a second interview would be overkill, and since the majority of K visas transfered are those who adjusted fairly quickly and are usually (though not always) from "low risk" countries, it makes sense.

Also, someone mentioned in another thread that K visas used to not have to interview afterwards, that a marriage certificate used to be all the proof needed for a k-1 to AOS, as you'd previously proven all the points of the usual AOS interview. Transferring all of these fairly straightforward cases to CSC is the closest equivilant of said system.

Common sense, really. I know it's rare to see something that seems to have such a straight-forward answer when dealing with the government, but that seems to be the explanation.

[M. 0]

This is just totally speculation and not based on anything, but I suppose because a K-1 interview proves the valid relationship but there's a hoop you must jump through (marriage) which a marriage certificate shows you've done, to adjust status. I don't know enough about K-3s to know what is required of the applicant after entry to adjust status.

Basically, my thought is:

K-1 interview proves relationship and shows intent;

Marriage is follow-through of intent;

Marriage certificate shows follow-through of intent

I also assume, based only on basic logic and no proof (which means it's prbly wrong, since this is the US federal government we're dealing with here. ) that that the reason K-2s tend to end up at CSC is because they don't need to prove a relationship as they're related by blood to the other applicant.

[CWR 0]

because a K-1 interview proves the valid relationship but there's a hoop you must jump through (marriage) which a marriage certificate shows you've done, to adjust status. I don't know enough about K-3s to know what is required of the applicant after entry to adjust status.

But the K-3 people have a marriage certificate as well....they just got married BEFORE immigrating, instead of after, like the K-1 people. But the rest of the process is really similar, isn't it?

Adjusting status is also pretty much the same for K-1s and K-3s:

K-1 = you get your visa, you immigrate, you marry and apply for AOS,

K3 = you marry, you get your visa, you immigrate, and apply for AOS.

So I don't think that's the reason.....

Anyway, who says USCIS has to have a reason for doing something? I am still subscribing to the "roll the dice"-theory

[calOC 0]

May be it is just roll of the dice but I think there probabaly are some sort of written or unwritten rules for picking cases for transfer to CSC. Everyone responding here is a K-1 visa holder and none with K-3. So that seems to be one rule.

If so, why would they think that somehow coming to US with the intention of getting married and then following through with it makes the relationship more bona fide than being already married before starting the visa process is beyond me.

Besides being on K-1 visa there may be other criteria – beneficiary’s country of origin, ages of the petitioner and the beneficiary, whether the petitioner is a born or naturalized USC, country of birth of the foreign born USC petitioner, gender of the beneficiary etc.

O what the heck… they are the government; they don’t have to make sense.

because a K-1 interview proves the valid relationship but there's a hoop you must jump through (marriage) which a marriage certificate shows you've done, to adjust status. I don't know enough about K-3s to know what is required of the applicant after entry to adjust status.

But the K-3 people have a marriage certificate as well....they just got married BEFORE immigrating, instead of after, like the K-1 people. But the rest of the process is really similar, isn't it?

Adjusting status is also pretty much the same for K-1s and K-3s:

K-1 = you get your visa, you immigrate, you marry and apply for AOS,

K3 = you marry, you get your visa, you immigrate, and apply for AOS.

So I don't think that's the reason.....

Anyway, who says USCIS has to have a reason for doing something? I am still subscribing to the "roll the dice"-theory

[M. 0]

But the K-3 people have a marriage certificate as well....they just got married BEFORE immigrating, instead of after, like the K-1 people.

That's EXACTLY my point!

With K-1 you interview with the INTENTION of getting married. The K-1 visa is, let's say, a contract with the US government (not exactly, but you get the idea) that says: "If you give me this visa, I'll fullfill my side by getting married to this person. I can prove that I have fulfilled this action with a piece of paper that I'll show you AFTER having fulfilled my side of the bargain."

They give you the visa on the grounds that you'll provide proof you've "completed the transaction" or "fulfilled the contract" as it were.

With a K-3, they already have the marriage certificate BEFORE their visa interview. There's no "action" taken other than moving to the US and adjusting status, no further "movement" to validate the relationship, and no *intention* that can be validated other than with joint accounts, comingled assets, etc. which take time to build up.

This would be why they'd need to process AOS more slowly -- to allow for more time to build up proof of the relationship AFTER the marriage certificate, and why an interview would be necessary, because there's no one document (like a marriage certificate) that shows a continuation of the relationship AFTER entry into the US.

Did that clarify what I was saying about why k-1 but not k-3?

[calOC 0]

If it is true and it is what USCIS goes by, it seems to mean that if you entered US as spouse of a USC you must show proof that you are in fact married and living with your spouse and if you came with the intention of getting married just show USCIS a marriage certificate and they trust you to be living with your spouse.

The real reason why some K1s get status adjusted without an interview and not K3s may be that USCIS does not trust a marriage certificate issued in a foreign country.

But the K-3 people have a marriage certificate as well....they just got married BEFORE immigrating, instead of after, like the K-1 people.

That's EXACTLY my point!

With K-1 you interview with the INTENTION of getting married. The K-1 visa is, let's say, a contract with the US government (not exactly, but you get the idea) that says: "If you give me this visa, I'll fullfill my side by getting married to this person. I can prove that I have fulfilled this action with a piece of paper that I'll show you AFTER having fulfilled my side of the bargain."

They give you the visa on the grounds that you'll provide proof you've "completed the transaction" or "fulfilled the contract" as it were.

With a K-3, they already have the marriage certificate BEFORE their visa interview. There's no "action" taken other than moving to the US and adjusting status, no further "movement" to validate the relationship, and no *intention* that can be validated other than with joint accounts, comingled assets, etc. which take time to build up.

This would be why they'd need to process AOS more slowly -- to allow for more time to build up proof of the relationship AFTER the marriage certificate, and why an interview would be necessary, because there's no one document (like a marriage certificate) that shows a continuation of the relationship AFTER entry into the US.

Did that clarify what I was saying about why k-1 but not k-3?