Pregnant and wish to apply from my fiance's home country

[Melanie.Branko 1]

Hello,

 

I am a US born citizen and my fiance is Serbian. We were previously living in Sri Lanka for 2 years until I became pregnant which made us decide we want to relocate to the US.

 

We have returned to Serbia to start the application process as it is better to apply in his home country, but I have heard that I, as the US citizen, would have to go back to America to apply. Is this true? I really don't want to be separated especially now that I am half way through the pregnancy. 

 

If we can't file the fiance visa together here in Serbia, we can get married and apply for the K-3, but I know this will take significantly longer. 

 

Any insight/advice would be highly appreciated! 

[Palala2018 28]

Im not 100% sure but I was under the impression that you need to establish domicile here in the US in order to petition for your fiance. Staying with him over seas and applying I believe is possible but there are obstacles like the domicile issue. I tried applying for K-3 (I-129F) for my husband to try and have him enter the country while we awaited approval on his I-130 but that pathway is pretty much dead. If you marry you will be applying for the spouse visa...IR/CR1(I-130) i believe its called. Browse through the forums here. There are some amazing people on this site with a wealth of information. 

 

Congratulations on your growing family  and Best of Luck on your Immigration journey

[CMaghrib 1]

I have seen other people mentioning domicile, which I find confusing. The reason why I find it to be confusing is how in certain states it is not easy to remove domicile completely. Certain states think that you're still a resident and domiciled as long as you are registered to vote there, have a banking account in the state, receive mail there, attend family functions there, and so forth.  If you are considered domiciled for tax purposes, why would you not be for a visa for your fiancé or spouse?  

[Palala2018 28]

I wish i had some clarity on that but it is confusing to me as well. My situation was much more straightforward in terms of domicile. I would suggest searching the forums for the word/s "domicile/ establishing domicile". Perhaps the USCIS website can also help shed some light, check out the instructions for the applications you think you want to file and read them very carefully. It's been a while so i can't even presume to remember what is written there about this topic. @geowrian is a really knowledgeable member....perhaps they can help shed some light.

 

PS. i wish i knew how to tag people  in posts like I have seen others do. But maybe you can click on the name and message instead????

Edited July 24, 2018 by Palala2018
not knowing how to tag another member

[CMaghrib 1]

I hope you get an answer soon! 

[nowayout203 62]

Don't quote me on this... but my understanding is that you don't have to be physically in the US to file I-129F. However, I-129F cannot be filed at a USCIS office or US embassy/consulate overseas (i.e. no direct consular filing).

[geowrian 22,337]

You don't need to be in the US when you file. You do need to be domiciled in the US - or show sufficient intent to reestablish domicile in the US - before the visa can be issued. The underlying reason is the visa is for family reunification...if you aren't planning to live in the US, why should your fiance get a visa to go to the US? I'm not suggesting that's the case here, but you need to show evidence that you plan to live in the US.

 

Domicile can be quite complicated, but a general rule is "where you lay your head on most nights". So you need to either return the US before your fiance, OR you must take sufficient actions to convince the CO that you really do intend to return to the US (i.e. enrolling children in school, if you have any, getting quotes for moving costs, having a lease or house to live in, etc.). There's a section on domicile in the NVC wiki (although note that NVC processing for a K-1 is very minimal...so if ignore the other stuff): http://www.visajourney.com/wiki/index.php/NVC_Process.

 

Since you already live together, I suggest marrying abroad and doing the CR-1 visa instead. It's superior in every way, and only takes a few months longer to get...in which you already live together, so it's not more time apart. At least consider it.

 

In either case, you will eventually (not with the I-129F) need to submit an Affidavit of Support to show that the beneficiary will not become a public charge in the US. This means you need either sufficient assets or sufficient income (that will continue from the same source once returning to the US), or to find a co sponsor.

Edited July 25, 2018 by geowrian

[JFH 12,190]

I have never understood why people living together overseas would even consider a K-1. It's essentially a ridiculously overpriced tourist visa that allows the holder to stay and adjust status if he/she marries the petitioner within 90 days of arrival. The immigrant spouse cannot work (and in some states cannot even drive) for many months after their arrival - and you have another person to feed and clothe soon. And if you follow the K-1 path you also have an even more ridiculously expensive adjustment of status process to complete once you marry. 

 

The K-1 is only useful for couples in different countries where the immigrant spouse-to-be cannot easily get a tourist visa to visit the USC and where a wedding in the intending immigrant's country would be too complicated/expensive to arrange. For example, countries that require an extended period of residence in order to marry there or an expensive visa process. There is no situation where a couple already living together would gain anything from a K-1. The main attraction for most couples is that they can be together quicker and don't have to start married life apart - neither of which apply to you. And they are prepared to sacrifice months of lost income in order to achieve it. 

 

The sooner you get married, the sooner you can start the spousal visa process. Neither process is going to be complete before the child arrives anyway. At least with the spousal visa the father can start to support his family from the day he arrives. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by JFH

[geowrian 22,337]

5 minutes ago, JFH said:

The K-1 is only useful for couples in different countries where the immigrant spouse-to-be cannot easily get a tourist visa to visit the USC and where a wedding in the intending immigrant's country would be too complicated/expensive to arrange.

There's also the edge case of having a stepchild involved who is under 21 but became a stepchild at age 18 or later. In which case, to bring the child at the same time, a K-1 would be optimal.

Edited July 26, 2018 by geowrian

[LenaT 95]

We applied when we both lived in Russia, which is my home country. There were some difficulties but it is possible to do it from Russia. The closer it gets to the interview itself, the more difficult it will be, for you have to show that a petitioner has a steady income and will be able to support a beneficiary. That was why my fiancee had to go back home. If not for this financial part, I would say it is possible. 

[Melanie.Branko 1]

On 26/07/2018 at 4:20 AM, JFH said:

I have never understood why people living together overseas would even consider a K-1. It's essentially a ridiculously overpriced tourist visa that allows the holder to stay and adjust status if he/she marries the petitioner within 90 days of arrival. The immigrant spouse cannot work (and in some states cannot even drive) for many months after their arrival - and you have another person to feed and clothe soon. And if you follow the K-1 path you also have an even more ridiculously expensive adjustment of status process to complete once you marry. 

 

On 26/07/2018 at 4:20 AM, JFH said:

There is no situation where a couple already living together would gain anything from a K-1.

 

The advantage of the K-1 for us is simply that it is faster.

 

I didn't want to share all my personal issues on this post, but another big factor we have to consider is recently my father's health condition has gotten worse as his cancer continues to spread. The bigger cost to me than any amount of money spent would be loosing my father while I am stuck jumping through beaurocratic hoops on the other side of the world. Realistically, I might end up having to travel alone with a month old baby to visit home just to ease my fear that my father would never have the chance to meet his grandchild.

 

From reading numerous posts on this site, it is clear that everyone's personal situation is unique and making this kind of decision is so much more than simply what is the most cost effect. 

Living with the regret of not expediting the process if something happens while we are here is a big part of this decision.

 

But thanks for sharing for your candour and opinion.