Didn't work, won't return home..

[Karee 4,189]

I agree that the IR-1/CR-1 is probably a better route, with the K-1 you have to start over after you are married and you have the "out of status" time before the green card is in hand. However, I think a USC should have the freedom to marry anyone they want, regaurdless of where they are from and the K-1 makes that more possible. It just needs to be tweeked.

People have the freedom to marry anyone they want. All I'm saying is USCIS policy should have nothing to do with it. They call it "family" based immigration, but technically there is no family until a marriage takes place. All they have to for a K-1 is meet at least once in the previous 2 years. IMO that requirement isn't enough.

They also need to do away with this B.S. of coming here on the VWP or a tourist visa, getting married, and adjusting status.

As far as I can tell, there is no U.S. policy preventing anyone from marrying whoever they want.

[Boiler 43,576]

People have the freedom to marry anyone they want. All I'm saying is USCIS policy should have nothing to do with it. They call it "family" based immigration, but technically there is no family until a marriage takes place. All they have to for a K-1 is meet at least once in the previous 2 years. IMO that requirement isn't enough.

They also need to do away with this B.S. of coming here on the VWP or a tourist visa, getting married, and adjusting status.

As far as I can tell, there is no U.S. policy preventing anyone from marrying whoever they want.

There is DOMA, but certainly outside the US you can marry who or what you want. Subject only to any local regulations. I remember reading about a lady who married a Dolphin.

[Karee 4,189]

There is DOMA, but certainly outside the US you can marry who or what you want. Subject only to any local regulations. I remember reading about a lady who married a Dolphin.

[lee&jeniebee 23]

They do have the freedom to marry whomever they want... just not the RIGHT to help bring that person to the US without proper vetting.

Also, you're not out-of-status once the AOS has been filed. you're in a "period of authorised stay". But I know what you're trying to say. The limbo between work/travel permit, plus how the GC date dictates ROC date and N-400 isn't really fair. It should really be back-dated to date of filing AOS because we shouldn't be penalised for rid

They do because of the K-1 visa or at least partly because of the K-1 visa because in a lot of cases it makes sense to bring your fiancé/e to the US for the wedding etc.

Now this is interesting and part of the reason why the K-1 needs a makeover. When my wife and I were in the AOS interview, near the end of the interview I asked the USCIS officer interviewing us: Why is there the “limbo” period after the I-94 expires and when the Green card arrives. Her response was as followed: “oh, it’s not limbo time, you are considered “out of status” until you file for the green card, your status becomes “pending”. Being in law enforcement for 15 years I had to do some research. (I didn’t ask any more awkward questions, for fear my wife’s green card would be denied.

What my lawyer friend and I discovered is that there is no legal term “pending” same with: “period of authorized stay” (show me the case law or US code) these are terms the USCIS uses to fill gaps. When the I-94 expires your visa is expired and in most cases the USCIS will ignore this fact for years in some cases. In the law, there is no difference between a work visa or student visa expiring than and I-94 but the expired I-94 will be over looked because it’s impossible to get your green card before it expires if you came here on a K-1.

This would be a really easy fix, you should be able to show up at the local USCIS office with your marriage certificate and SSN card and get a 6 month extension to your I-94, problem solved. No “period of authorized stay” (who’s authorization?) hahaha

[Caryh 5,206]

Not really, I'm just supporting those beneficiaries who have merits by being honest or not making up lies, to apply for abuse / Vawa to be able to have legal stay in the US. Just my thoughts....in fairness to innocent beneficiaries, thus the very reason why the law was enacted.

A problem with what you said in your earlier post, is USCIS does not make the laws, VAWA or others, congress does and they're not basing those laws on having seen so many cases. USCIS is just carrying them out. Also its one thing to ask a petitioner to be responsible for an immigrant that comes here, but VAWA asks the tax payer to be responsible. I have mixed feelings about both sides of this issue. I understand your points but understand the other side to.

[Villanelle 4,121]

This thread has taken an interesting turn.

I dont know if my original post was written too coldly or just in a matter of fact way- which is why I said to be echoing of a USCIS employee- but I cant help if thats how it is.

The K1 is not a 'get to know you visa'. Its just not. Theres different types of visas available with different purposes. Theres travel, work, student etc. They each have different rules and purposes.

The K1 was designed to bring someone that you intend to marry over and marry them in a short window of time.

To say- well the K1 would be better if it has a greater window of time to get married in so people could use it to get to know each other in, well that would be altering it from its original purpose.

This is the current visa in place and what its intended for. There is no 'get to know you visa'. Does that suck for people who cant afford to travel to get to know each other or come from places where they cant use the VWP to travel to get to know each other? Sure. Do some people misuse the K1 as a get to know you visa because of this- yes, of course.

Is USCIS ever going to change the purpose of the K1 from bringing someone you intend to marry over in a short window of time to a get to know you visa with a large window of time? Highly unlikely. IMO theres too many security concerns. They already have a high level of 'eyebrow raising' at I 100% swear I intend to marry and they respond with 'are you sure the relationship is genuine?' - now youre delving into bluntly saying- Im honestly not sure about the person but I want to admit them into the US so I can decide? Um yeah okay- sure lets do that.

------

Its also a little disheartening to see so little support for VAWA. Im assuming in this thread its referring to solely VAWA as it relates to immigration as VAWA covers a wide variety of matters from human trafficking to abuse- but here I believe people are just referring to those who apply for AOS through VAWA claims.

I dont know where or how the taxpayers pay for VAWA? Or why someone who is a victim of abuse should have to leave the US? VAWA is simply a way for the victim to file the papers on their own with out the support of the person who is abusing them. (In legitimate cases) someone brought them to the US and has now mistreated and 'abandoned them'. The answer is - well go back to where you came from?

[Boiler 43,576]

most of the victims of VAWA you see on this site are USC's.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

What my lawyer friend and I discovered is that there is no legal term “pending” same with: “period of authorized stay” (show me the case law or US code) these are terms the USCIS uses to fill gaps. When the I-94 expires your visa is expired and in most cases the USCIS will ignore this fact for years in some cases. In the law, there is no difference between a work visa or student visa expiring than and I-94 but the expired I-94 will be over looked because it’s impossible to get your green card before it expires if you came here on a K-1.

I advise you to find another "lawyer friend" because there IS the term "period of authorized stay" and it's quite a well known, and easy to find one at that. Always worries me when attorney's use the fact they have a law degree as a reason to know all :S On this site you'll find it's rarely the case.

Relevant section of the INA - INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii): http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html

(ii) Construction of unlawful presence.-For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.

Relevant section of FAM here which explains the bolded portion above: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87120.pdf (b) (5)

(b) DHS has interpreted "period of stay authorized by the Secretary of Homeland Security" as used in the construction of unlawful presence in INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii) to include:

(5) For aliens who have properly filed an application for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR), the entire period of the pendency of the application, even if the application is subsequently denied or abandoned, provided the alien (unless seeking to adjust status under NACARA or HRIFA) did not file for adjustment "defensively" (i.e., after deportation proceedings had already been initiated);

[InHisTime 110]

A problem with what you said in your earlier post, is USCIS does not make the laws, VAWA or others, congress does and they're not basing those laws on having seen so many cases. USCIS is just carrying them out. Also its one thing to ask a petitioner to be responsible for an immigrant that comes here, but VAWA asks the tax payer to be responsible. I have mixed feelings about both sides of this issue. I understand your points but understand the other side to.

Sir Caryh, please don't misunderstood my post.....If you read my earlier post carefully, I said that "I partially agree" on what Ms. Vanessa mentioned about no need for VAWA / waivers, whatsoever" ....................but...I also knew the fact that there are some immigrants who are being abused, and not ready to go back for reasons I've mentioned in my earlier post.... so I'm also emphasizing my support to the innocent victims who came to the US with promises of love, fidelity, all the good things.......and left abandoned, accused of fraud, and have experiences all the selfishness of the petitioners.

I don't think the congress will sponsor / approve the law without any basis.

[Villanelle 4,121]

most of the victims of VAWA you see on this site are USC's.

Lol. That is the most interesting wording I have ever seen. I really cant argue with that! (Im not being sarcastic either).

I guess the beneficiaries of VAWA are the legitimate victims of abuse- those brought over and abused and use the VAWA act in regards to immigration to adjust status. And then on the flip side of the coin there are victims of the VAWA act. The USCs who are victims of those who use the act to gain a benefit.

But then were back to an old debate. Do you cut off a legitimate program that benefits legitimate victims because some people abuse it to commit fraud? Do you tighten the regulations and make it impossible for those that need it to use it just because some abuse it?

[Boiler 43,576]

wrong thread

Edited May 20, 2013 by Boiler

[Boiler 43,576]

Just delete the need to falsify evidence.

[lee&jeniebee 23]

I advise you to find another "lawyer friend" because there IS the term "period of authorized stay" and it's quite a well known, and easy to find one at that. Always worries me when attorney's use the fact they have a law degree as a reason to know all :S On this site you'll find it's rarely the case.

Relevant section of the INA - INA 212(a)(9)(B)(ii): http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-2006.html

Relevant section of FAM here which explains the bolded portion above: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/87120.pdf (b) (5)

Good work, my friend is a criminal defense lawyer not an immigration lawyer, so cut her some slack (state law not federal). Seriously this helps. It's really really thin and would only help if you apply for AOS before the I-94 expires, bit it could really mud the water. We should all do the AOS before the I-94 expires, we (me) over spent on the wedding and needed an extra month for the $1070 AOS fee. oops. I was wrong. That doesn't mean the K-1 should not be re-worked.

Now if you come here on any visa and are abused, the #### that abused you should be prosecuted and forced to pay for your return home. If in jail that person can not afford to send you home, tax dollars should send you home, within 30 days, period. We can put a lean on the SSN of the #### sitting in jail, next time income is reported, we start collecting (with interest.)

Thanks to everyone for responding on this thread, especially Vanessa&Tony, well done. I have learned a lot. I wish our immigration system could be better, it should be and not so complicated, seriously, even lawyers get it wrong. Despite all of the rhetoric, the last 3 years has been the best of my life.... So far!

[james&olya 1,121]

Lol. That is the most interesting wording I have ever seen. I really cant argue with that! (Im not being sarcastic either).

I guess the beneficiaries of VAWA are the legitimate victims of abuse- those brought over and abused and use the VAWA act in regards to immigration to adjust status. And then on the flip side of the coin there are victims of the VAWA act. The USCs who are victims of those who use the act to gain a benefit.

But then were back to an old debate. Do you cut off a legitimate program that benefits legitimate victims because some people abuse it to commit fraud? Do you tighten the regulations and make it impossible for those that need it to use it just because some abuse it?

Why not just add some wording to the act that imposes harsh penalties including deportation and a lifetime ban for false allegations of abuse against a USC?

. I remember reading about a lady who married a Dolphin.

Sounds fishy to me!

[Brian1967## 119]

Well I can tell you I do think that the K-1 process does need a make over but VAWA needs a heavy make over, the things about VAWA and making it administrative is it strips the USC of the right to defend himself/ herself against abuse claims that are false, change the amount of evidence needed to a higher standard and make sure both parties are heard at the AOS ( I did not say have the partys together in the same room, for the AOS, let USCIS be proactive about this issue) No one on this site really knows how USCIS does its work in these cases, because each case is as different as each couple. I do agree with Capri, There are REAL victims out there of abuse, there are real women and men that level charges of false abuse against a USC and this charge is with them for the rest of their lives, if a false restraining order is issued it shows when a person renews ID's if the police stop you fro a traffic violation, how is it USCIS thinks this is okay, how do people think it is okay to do such damage to a person just for a green card it is not fair to the USC. My lovely ex from Ukraine tried false alligations and I have caught her in two counts of perjury to the court, and she abused my minor child, I have no recourse and USCIS will do nothing really, so these types of "clever" (or so they say in Ukraine if you lie and get away with it you are clever) people like this should be booted out of the country and told to never come back. But since I MIGHT be considered a bitter ex ( I have proof of what I have said) What is my ex wife's reward for what she has done.....a ten year green card....nice huh? The system is not broke at all, I want my voice heard at USCIS to make sure this type of person goes back home never to live or visit this country again, bitter no, mad as hell yes

If they got to marry a dolphin I have a pet goat, anybody want to come to the reception

Edited May 20, 2013 by Brian1967##