Question about which visa we need

[grrrrreat 110]

Again: That is not the true Intent. I would just not fell right knowing that a family member petitioned and the real story was to get him/her in the States when the real intent was to Marry.

Thats just my thought.

Unfortunately, I think you are a little confused. If you have two different routes to LPR status, you can choose to either one of them. There's no rule about being sponsored by a relative even though you intend to marry a U.S. citizen once you get here. And LPRs are allowed to marry whoever they want. There's no fraud or misrepresentation here.

[grrrrreat 110]

I am going to give you a plain and simple answer. Go the K-1 route. It's simple as that. Go the K-1 route and absolutely positively *forget* about the family members route. Reasons are many-fold:

1. His true intent for coming here is not to be with his family but to marry you. Although perfectly legal, it can still be misconstrued as immigration fraud. You never know what kind of consular officer you will get and what kind of questions you will be asked. Don't chance it. Go by the book.

2. Your boyfriend is most definitely unmarried and more than likely over 21. In this regard, he will fall into the I-130 category of "Unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. Citizens over 21" This category is NOT immediate like the spousal category. I quickly searched the California Service Center statistics for the above (just as an example), and they are currently processing applications for this category with the priority date of January 13, 2010. They're processing applications that were filed over TWO YEARS AGO.

Conclusion: K-1 visa is best for you, IF you truly intend to marry your boyfriend within 90 days of his arrival.

Please stop giving the advice that there's somehow fraud in using the relative petitioner route to LPR status when your true intent is to marry. There's absolutely no rule about using either one of two available routes to LPR status, and nothing prevents anyone seeking LPR status through a relative when their true intent is to marry. Obviously you have to answer truthfully, so if you are asked about your intent to marry, etc., you have to disclose, but there's absolutely no problem with this. However, the point stands that in this circumstance the K-1 will be faster than any other route the poster has.

For 2, I didn't catch the poster say his father was a USC, so I'm not sure if he even qualifies there.

[sulhaq 60]

Please stop giving the advice that there's somehow fraud in using the relative petitioner route to LPR status when your true intent is to marry. There's absolutely no rule about using either one of two available routes to LPR status, and nothing prevents anyone seeking LPR status through a relative when their true intent is to marry. Obviously you have to answer truthfully, so if you are asked about your intent to marry, etc., you have to disclose, but there's absolutely no problem with this. However, the point stands that in this circumstance the K-1 will be faster than any other route the poster has.

For 2, I didn't catch the poster say his father was a USC, so I'm not sure if he even qualifies there.

My post clearly identifies that the process is *perfectly legal* If you read my post more closely, I am merely stating that although it is legal you do not know what kind of immigration officer you will get and what kind of questions he will ask, so, why even take the chance of having to explain your true intentions? This is what I meant. My intention was never to portray that there was something wrong with it.

Edited April 9, 2012 by sulhaq

[didopage 337]

Guys, read ALL the other posts before posting anything (especially the ones from Laure&Colin and Nich-Nick). OP said then that her boyfriend's father doesn't live in the US, it's the father's brother and stepbrother/stepsisters. "None of these people are immediate relatives as defined by the immigration law, and they cannot petition for him".

K-1 is their only choice.

[grrrrreat 110]

My post clearly identifies that the process is *perfectly legal* If you read my post more closely, I am merely stating that although it is legal you do not know what kind of immigration officer you will get and what kind of questions he will ask, so, why even take the chance of having to explain your true intentions? This is what I meant. My intention was never to portray that there was something wrong with it.

I did read it, and saw that you noted it was perfectly legal, but you also said that it could be "misconstrued as immigration fraud", which I disagree with. Anything can be misconstrued as anything I suppose, but it's unlikely in this case and isn't a good reason to choose one route over another. If you are a CO, and you are examining someone who has been petitioned as an immediate relative of a USC, and the immigrant also discloses that they intend to marry another USC, there's absolutely no reason that would cause you to deny the visa. And, contrary to what some have stated, there's no rule that the beneficiary of an immediate relative or family preference visa has to live or even spend time with the USC family EXCEPT for spouse or fiance visas. There's actually LESS risk of fraud for IR or family preference visas than for spouses/fiancees, since no proof of a "bona fide relationship" is required.

As others have said, the poster probably only qualifies for a K-1, which would be as fast or faster than any IR or family preference category anyway, so that's the route. I am a lawyer and I just didn't want others reading to get the impression that it's somehow fraud or could be construed as fraud to come to the U.S. on an immediate relative or family preference visa if you do not plan to live with that family or plan to live with or marry someone else.

[Imagination 15]

No. Only Vermont and California SC process I-129F petitions, and they are both at a 5 months goal. Applying for the K-1 visa takes usually a few more months after that, depending on the beneficiary country.

OP, how old is your boyfriend? Under 21 or over?

Thanks for the info. USCIS i guess hasn't updated their website then.