Polyamory and K-1 visas

[heishe 2]

Also, you can't be accidentally common law married. Part of the requirements for common law marriage in those states that allow it is a desire to be married and some sort of public declaration or conduct that indicates you are married. It's not just that you live together and have a lot of sex for a while, then, oops, you're married.

[zyggy 9]

Since you are from Pennsylvania, if your current living arrangement was established before Jan 05, you ARE married.

Not exactly... there are a lot of other things that have to be involved other than merely living with each other... evidence that they were presenting themselves as husband and wife.... (filing joint tax returns, etc..)

[DA BOMB 1]

And then there's that pesky Question #14 on Page 3 of Form I-485.................

hallelujah

[Jenn! 918]

And then there's that pesky Question #14 on Page 3 of Form I-485.................

hallelujah

We've already established that that doesn't apply since she does not plan on marrying the other BF. Or actually more accurately, the immigrant does not plan on marrying another. As long as there is only one marriage....

[zyggy 9]

And then there's that pesky Question #14 on Page 3 of Form I-485.................

hallelujah

Not exactly... what appears to be and what has been established to be are two different things in law... Attorneys are trained to distinguish between the two and that why a consultation is in order...

[ivona 0]

Since you are from Pennsylvania, if your current living arrangement was established before Jan 05, you ARE married.

In terms of immigration, the key here is whether the arrangement between the US boyfriend and petitioner is considered a common law union- in my layman view I want to say it is, because of the boyfriend being able to claim her on his taxes as co- dependent

I dare say, with how extensive the checks are, the petitioners name might pop up in relation to the boyfriend even if his name isn't mentioned anywhere in the K1 petition- just beause she is on his tax returns....

I would seek advice from a good lawyer on this.... common law union with the boyfriend makes this immigration fraud, if it is recognized as such- but that's it

[mybackpages 0]

Google it...an immigration officer will ask whether the OP practices polygamy at the interview...should she leave the boyfriend out then? Oh...lie to an immigration officer? That goes against everything this board stands for.

The OP does not practice nor intends to practice polygamy. She will not have 2 husbands. She will not be lying to USCIS. From your personal beliefs, she may be committing adulty, but there is no question on any USCIS or DOS form that prohibits adultry. Adultry is not a crime.

[heishe 2]

How is it immigration fraud?

The USC petitioneer needs to be able to marry, and she is able to marry... I agree red flags might be flying because of the cultural bias involved, but ultimately- unless this is the case of just wanting to obtain a green card for this guy and then never see him again- she loves this guy and she wishes to marry him....if both of them then choose to live with the third person how is that USCIS business....

The questions are:

- is it a bonafide relationship? (and yes, it can be despite the other guy)

- is the USC petitioner legally able to marry?

- is the beneficiary legally able to marry?

I mean, let's turn the situation around a bit: what if this girl was living with another woman and if their life encompased all the elements of a romantic relationship, BUT if they lived in a state that does not recognize the homosexual union as even possible.... and the girl wanted to petition her boyfriend to come and marry her, and they would live with the other girlfriend....

It's not up to the USCIS to investigate on how the couple chooses to live or who they choose to live with....

There are plenty of swingers in the US, if it happens that a swinger couple is one that is together through a marriage visa/ green card does that make them commiting immigration fraud.... does that change the fact that they love each other, wanted to marry each other, and were both legally able to marry each other......

That said, I would leave th US BF out of it as much as possible when it comes to the immigration process

Read the rules before you let your little fingers loose on the keyboard. I could interject my Catholic beliefs on this matter but then I'd be here all day...HOWEVER...the USCIS added moral character as a requirement for a reason. The reason the OP cant find archives on the subject is because its not allowed. Let her find a lawyer...unless that lawyer is willing to lose his or her license she's out of luck. If there were no standards then CIMT wouldnt exist. The difference here is that the OP continues her lifestyle. It IS up to the USCIS to investigate on how a couple chooses to live their lives..why else are we pouring every ounce of evidence into these petitions we send in? Google it...an immigration officer will ask whether the OP practices polygamy at the interview...should she leave the boyfriend out then? Oh...lie to an immigration officer? That goes against everything this board stands for.

OP isn't married to her American boyfriend, so she won't be practicing polygamy by marrying her foreign boyfriend, so the boyfriend can say no to these question without lying. What she is proposing is not illegal. CIMT concerns crimes. The OP's behavior, no matter how offensive, is not a crime.

ETA: Or, what mybackpages said.

Confidential to mybackpages: Hey NOA buddy! How's life?

Edited March 26, 2007 by heishe

[zyggy 9]

Since you are from Pennsylvania, if your current living arrangement was established before Jan 05, you ARE married.

In terms of immigration, the key here is whether the arrangement between the US boyfriend and petitioner is considered a common law union- in my layman view I want to say it is, because of the boyfriend being able to claim her on his taxes as co- dependent

I dare say, with how extensive the checks are, the petitioners name might pop up in relation to the boyfriend even if his name isn't mentioned anywhere in the K1 petition- just beause she is on his tax returns....

I would seek advice from a good lawyer on this.... common law union with the boyfriend makes this immigration fraud, if it is recognized as such- but that's it

Claiming someone as a Qualifying Relative in terms of US tax law is not the same as treating or declaring someone as their wife... Being a Qualifying Relative does not imply a spousal relationship... filing as married does... If the former were the case, then there would be a whole bunch of common-law unions...

Edited March 26, 2007 by zyggy

[ivona 0]

...an immigration officer will ask whether the OP practices polygamy at the interview...should she leave the boyfriend out then? Oh...lie to an immigration officer? That goes against everything this board stands for.

polyGAMY and polyAMORY are NOT the same thing

[PCKAA 0]

what is this world coming to...

I can't believe this BS

[rebeccajo 14]

...an immigration officer will ask whether the OP practices polygamy at the interview...should she leave the boyfriend out then? Oh...lie to an immigration officer? That goes against everything this board stands for.

polyGAMY and polyAMORY are NOT the same thing

Oh I realize that ...... as far as modern definitions of trysting are concerned.

I'm just not sure how an adjudicating officer would view it. Thus an attorney consult is in order.

[JoeMama 0]

Isn't there a box on the Federal 1040 that asks if you're being someone else is claiming you as a dependent on your tax returns? If your boyfriend is, as the original poster has stated, how is this being done? They're not married. She's not receiving full-time medical care. She's not under the age of 18. How? I am very curious. If the original poster has to submit her previous tax returns as required for a K-1 petitiion, it's going to say the person who the person is that has claimed her on their taxes. Am I right? Or have I missed something?

Edited March 26, 2007 by altimixdj

[ivona 0]

I'm just not sure how an adjudicating officer would view it. Thus an attorney consult is in order.

Oh, I agree- this isn't the situation I would want to be in....

Honestly, I don't think she will be able to pull it off .... but you never know, USCIS might surprise us by looking at just the facts as opposed to introducing the adjucating officers personal, moral/ religious views into the mix.

The AOs are just people too, right?

Edited March 26, 2007 by ivona

[TracyTN 237]

I feel like I should be able to instigate something here, but can't think of what it would be.

I'm failing as an instigator.