Sticky K1 situation

[O&GForever 387]

1 hour ago, Nitas_man said:

The processing time is exactly the same however if you wanted to file for K3 you filed in the wrong order.  The I130 petition has to be filed before or concurrently with the I129F petition (or at least that's what we did - 10 years ago LOL).  That was because I130 petitions took longer and the I129F moved through to the embassy while USCIS was sitting on the I130.

 

It has nothing to do with the benefit.  The fastest path to K3 is to file the petitions together.  They are processed together, and they are approved together.  So since the I130 arrives at the state department at the same time they move forward with processing the immigrant visa and discard the nonimmigrant one.

You unfortunately filed in the wrong order and failed to attach the marriage certificate to the I129F that would qualify it as K1.

 

SO:  IF you are actually married, it's back to square one on petition filing.  It's a lesson learned.

 

 

I will add to this that K3s are rarely processed anymore. They were put in place when CR1s were taking years. Now they only issues a few hundred at most. 

[OlayemiLoray 172]

10 hours ago, MrCIA said:

I'm not being rude. I only wish to protect my-self and beneficiary from any incrimination. As other have mentioned.. You never know who's watching the forums.

Okay, I totally get that now...However, wishing you and yours well on your journey!

[BuiQuang 95]

12 hours ago, MrCIA said:

I'm not being rude. I only wish to protect my-self and beneficiary from any incrimination. As other have mentioned.. You never know who's watching the forums.

u get better answer if u name country.  otherwise u get generic answer that may not work for ur country.  no all the same in every country.  If PI, then very different.  If Nigeria, then very different.

 

what u got to be scare of it u going with truth and cr1?  only reason to be scare if u continue to hide the ceremony and go with k-1, right?

[Orangesapples 1,954]

14 hours ago, Snisia said:

And still didn't mentioned the country the beneficiary is from.....

There's no need for us to know which country it is. This is pure curiosity on your part. OP can easily research the country laws and find out if the ceremony is binding and there's no need to tell us. 

[Orangesapples 1,954]

50 minutes ago, BuiQuang said:

u get better answer if u name country.  otherwise u get generic answer that may not work for ur country.  no all the same in every country.  If PI, then very different.  If Nigeria, then very different.

 

what u got to be scare of it u going with truth and cr1?  only reason to be scare if u continue to hide the ceremony and go with k-1, right?

He can easily get those answers by researching the internet and the forum here. OP, don't disclose any more information, it's possible that the embassy is monitoring vj, so good on you for keeping quiet. You don't owe an explanation to anyone here. 

[OlayemiLoray 172]

9 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

There's no need for us to know which country it is. This is pure curiosity on your part. OP can easily research the country laws and find out if the ceremony is binding and there's no need to tell us. 

First of all it was asked by several to see if OP may get the answer he is seeking..I could careless what country the beneficiary is from, so no it wouldn't be curiosity on my part...OP has already responded to comment which I can fully understand why he chooses not to put that information out there and that is his right...

[geowrian 22,335]

There's no reason the OP needs to disclose his country (or any other details of his case). At the same time, a general question can only have - at best - generalized responses that may or may not actually apply to their situation.

[Limey 550]

Even if the ceremony isn't binding or considered a marriage in your partner's country, doesn't mean USCIS will accept that. They aren't experts on family law in jurisdictions around the world. If they see any evidence of a ceremony, then they may well consider it a wedding, even if it would not be considered so in the country where it took place. I have no experience of this other than having been on these forums a few years. As others have said, I've seen numerous cases here of people being deemed "too married for a K1, not married enough for CR1". Commonly here I've read posters with issues where an engagement ceremony (explicitly NOT a marriage) has been deemed to be a marriage ceremony by USCIS officer.

There are numerous ways this could come back to bite you, just a few I could think of:

1) someone at the ceremony posted details to facebook, or elsewhere on web. Just because you delete your social media doesn't mean every other person there did.

2) US government security agencies most probably have access to social media info via NSA etc. Probably not used for most cases, but if your partner is from an area with specific security issues (eg especially Muslim countries) then they may find details that you had social media, and deleted during k1 process. How will that look to them?

3) In future someone else aware of the issue who you fall out with may decide to report it to USCIS to cause trouble.

4) Ceremony might have been documented officially, and show up either online, or in searches by local embassy of local marriages/ceremonies etc.

 

Do you want to spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder, worried that they'll discover your concealment of these facts?

 

Always be completely truthful with USCIS. If they deny you because they deemed that you lied to them, this is VERY serious. Don't think about jumping onto CR1 at that point. Think instead about a lengthy ban for your partner from the USA. It is better to be denied for telling the truth, than denied for lying. Tell them the truth, even if this scuppers your k1. There is always the CR1.

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Limey

[mcfarljw 36]

On 12/8/2017 at 1:15 AM, Scandi said:

But OP isn't talking about the CR-1, they filed for the K-1. Believe it or not but there is actually a thing called "too married for a K-1 but not married enough for a CR-1". Which means that even if you didn't marry legally and there's no marriage certificate, you can still be denied the K-1 visa because of a "ceremony" that makes you "too married" in the eyes of the CO. 

 

If that happens you have no choice but to marry for real and file for a CR-1. For that you will need some sort of documented proof, what we call a marriage certificate, yes.

 

Where in the fine print does it specifically prohibit a non-legally binding ceremony?

 

I keep seeing the "too married for a K-1 but not married enough for a CR-1" statement posted in various forms a lot here on VJ, but I've yet to see an actual link to an official document listing this as an ineligibility. I have never seen any mention of this on any other website or "k1 what not to do lists" and on the governments own eligibility requirements it clearly states: 

 

Quote

You and your fiancé(e) are both free to marry and any previous marriages must have been legally terminated by divorce, death, or annulment.

 

https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens/fiancee-visa/fiancee-visas

 

Quote

Both the U.S. citizen and the K-1 visa applicant must have been legally free to marry at the time the petition was filed and must have remained so thereafter.

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/family-immigration/nonimmigrant-visa-for-a-fiance-k-1.html

 

How would having a non-legally binding ceremony be breaking this requirement?

 

I realize that some countries might define legal marriage as just having a wedding ceremony, but for many other countries you need to specifically register for a marriage certificate before being legally recognized as married by the local government. If you just have a ceremony but aren't legally married that still means you're both still free to marry. The keyword in all of this is "legally" and if both countries require marriage certificates for them to be deemed legal I don't see how a person could be rejected for having a ceremony.

Edited December 9, 2017 by mcfarljw

[Lemonslice 4,556]

10 minutes ago, mcfarljw said:

 

Where in the fine print does it specifically prohibit a non-legally binding ceremony?

 

I keep seeing the "too married for a K-1 but not married enough for a CR-1" statement posted in various forms a lot here on VJ, but I've yet to see an actual link to an official document listing this as an ineligibility. I have never seen any mention of this on any other website or "k1 what not to do lists" and on the governments own eligibility requirements it clearly states: 

 

 

 

How would having a non-legally binding ceremony be breaking this requirement?

 

I realize that some countries might define legal marriage as just having a wedding ceremony, but for many other countries you need to specifically register for a marriage certificate before being legally recognized as married by the local government. If you just have a ceremony but aren't legally married that still means you're both still free to marry. The keyword in all of this is "legally" and if both countries require marriage certificates for them to be deemed legal I don't see how a person could be rejected for having a ceremony.

The tricky part is that if the interviewing officer is perceiving that you got married by doing some ceremonial activity (by dressing in wedding attire, paying the bride price, or whatever) ... how are you going to convince them otherwise?

[Unlockable 7,306]

7 minutes ago, mcfarljw said:

 

Where in the fine print does it specifically prohibit a non-legally binding ceremony?

 

I keep seeing the "too married for a K-1 but not married enough for a CR-1" statement posted in various forms a lot here on VJ, but I've yet to see an actual link to an official document listing this as an ineligibility. I have never seen any mention of this on any other website or "k1 what not to do lists" and on the governments own eligibility requirements it clearly states: 

 

 

 

How would having a non-legally binding ceremony be breaking this requirement?

 

I realize that some countries might define legal marriage as just having a wedding ceremony, but for many other countries you need to specifically register for a marriage certificate before being legally recognized as married by the local government. If you just have a ceremony but aren't legally married that still means you're both still free to marry. The keyword in all of this is "legally" and if both countries require marriage certificates for them to be deemed legal I don't see how a person could be rejected for having a ceremony.

There have been multiple links to threads where people have been denied for having a ceremony. Including this thread that is ongoing today...

The issue is not whether the marriage is legal-binding, the issue is that A CO CAN DENY A VISA BECAUSE OF HIS OR HER INTERPRETATION OF THE CEREMONY. It does not matter if it is legal binding or not.

 

For example, if a CO had the authority to deny you a visa for wearing a blue shirt, why risk it by wearing one? I know it is a silly example by it is just to make a point.

[mcfarljw 36]

1 minute ago, Lemonslice said:

The tricky part is that if the interviewing officer is perceiving that you got married by doing some ceremonial activity (by dressing in wedding attire, paying the bride price, or whatever) ... how are you going to convince them otherwise?

If it's a country where you're required to register a marriage license or certificate before being considering legally married then they check with that country to make sure you're not legally married. It seems easy enough to check since it would be documented if you were already really married.

[mcfarljw 36]

4 minutes ago, NuestraUnion said:

There have been multiple links to threads where people have been denied for having a ceremony. Including this thread that is ongoing today...

The issue is not whether the marriage is legal-binding, the issue is that A CO CAN DENY A VISA BECAUSE OF HIS OR HER INTERPRETATION OF THE CEREMONY. It does not matter if it is legal binding or not.

 

For example, if a CO had the authority to deny you a visa for wearing a blue shirt, why risk it by wearing one? I know it is a silly example by it is just to make a point.

My question wasn't whether or not it's happening. I've seen on the forums here people talking about it quite a bit. My question is how would people know about it if they aren't using this website? Where is the official fine print reference stating that this is grounds for being denied?

[Unlockable 7,306]

10 minutes ago, mcfarljw said:

If it's a country where you're required to register a marriage license or certificate before being considering legally married then they check with that country to make sure you're not legally married. It seems easy enough to check since it would be documented if you were already really married.

Which is exactly why most of the denials we see are from countries where a religious ceremony IS considered married.

 

Quote

My question wasn't whether or not it's happening. I've seen on the forums here people talking about it quite a bit. My question is how would people know about it if they aren't using this website? Where is the official fine print reference stating that this is grounds for being denied?

They won't know unless they do research themselves. It is unfortunate also as you can see in the link to thread I posted, the poster had no idea that such a ceremony would cause so much grief.

 

The US government would never list on their NOT TO DO list because technically they can't stop people from having events and ceremonies. It is when these ceremonies look too much like a wedding that it is a problem.

 

If you read the thread I posted the link in, the OP not only had a priest bless the couple at their "engagement ceremony" but they also exchanged rings. That is more similar to a wedding than an engagement party.

Edited December 9, 2017 by NuestraUnion

[mcfarljw 36]

1 minute ago, NuestraUnion said:

Which is exactly why most of the denials we see are from countries where a religious ceremony IS considered married.

It would be interesting to get a list of the countries where this is an actual risk. If you just start reading through VJ you would get the impression that there is a high chance of getting denied from any country for doing this. For example, in China you could have a traditional wedding ceremony and legally it wouldn't mean anything until file for and receive a marriage license through the marriage registration office by:

 

1.) proving you have a valid passport

2.) proving you aren't married by obtaining a marriageability affidavit from US Embassy

3.) proving your fiance has a valid id card

4.) proving your fiance has not already married

 

That to me seems like an absolute distinction between being legally married and not married unless I'm missing some fine print clause that states otherwise. Am I missing something?