K1 Visa Denied at Interview in Islamabad

[Anna&eiad 84]

13 hours ago, geowrian said:

Sounds like the attorney wasn't quite well experienced enough in fiance-based family immigration if he wasn't familiar with the "too married" reason for refusal.

Its not "too married" she herself said they are married and tried to lie about it by saying the government didnt know she had gone to the man's house completing the marriage. Immigration is not nasty. The co did their job. There is no appeal because you are married and do not qualify for a fiance visa. It is not the white lawyers fault or co fault. It is yours for not understanding that foance means engagement not husband and wife. Do not blame others. You can not lie to immigration plain and simple. It does not even matter about traveling together the fact is..you are married not engaged. 

7 minutes ago, geowrian said:

I think the "outside cultural norms" is being a bit misunderstood here. Marrying a foreigner is not the norm in many societies, but that's not an issue for immigration obviously. The red flag is when there are differences in the circumstances that would be out of the ordinary compared to dating a local. For instance, a large gap in age can be a red flag if it is unusual to marry somebody locally that is also of the same age gap.

 

In some cultures, it's unusual for a single woman to travel alone with a man before marriage...they typically have a chaperone involved. That difference likely triggered extra scrutiny here. The CO may have been wrong in the end, but he wasn't actually wrong in the decision if he felt that couple may have been married. They are required to refuse a K-1 to a couple they aren't certain are single and will legally marry within 90 days of entry on the K-1 visa.

In the end it was not a bad decision. They ARE married so the co did do their job. You choose to marry knowing you were doing a fiance visa. Did the lawyer tell you

[Boiler 43,434]

To complicate matters there are two different case in the same thread.

 

1. Not married but acting married according to local norms

 

2. Married during process and still went to interview for a K1.

[HP+IC 292]

9 minutes ago, Boiler said:

To complicate matters there are two different case in the same thread.

 

1. Not married but acting married according to local norms

 

2. Married during process and still went to interview for a K1.

Notwithstanding the idea that two different situations are mixed in the same thread (which is correct) 'acting married according to local norms' sounds pretty weird. At least to me after 20 years marriage and specifically with reference to 'local norms'. What I meant in my post above was: we intending to marry a USC already ARE way out of the local norm. Once we are, it will be quite normal for us to do things differently from an average local. Then why judge us in comparison to a local who will never ever do what we do. So what is the issue for immigration, really?

[Boiler 43,434]

5 minutes ago, HP+IC said:

Notwithstanding the idea that two different situations are mixed in the same thread (which is correct) 'acting married according to local norms' sounds pretty weird. At least to me after 20 years marriage and specifically with reference to 'local norms'. What I meant in my post above was: we intending to marry a USC already ARE way out of the local norm. Once we are, it will be quite normal for us to do things differently from an average local. Then why judge us in comparison to a local who will never ever do what we do. So what is the issue for immigration, really?

They are all of the same heritage, how things are done in the US, or UK or maybe Ukraine is not how things are always done elsewhere.

[geowrian 22,335]

5 hours ago, Anna&eiad said:

Its not "too married" she herself said they are married and tried to lie about it by saying the government didnt know she had gone to the man's house completing the marriage. Immigration is not nasty. The co did their job. There is no appeal because you are married and do not qualify for a fiance visa. It is not the white lawyers fault or co fault. It is yours for not understanding that foance means engagement not husband and wife. Do not blame others. You can not lie to immigration plain and simple. It does not even matter about traveling together the fact is..you are married not engaged. 

In the end it was not a bad decision. They ARE married so the co did do their job. You choose to marry knowing you were doing a fiance visa. Did the lawyer tell you

You're confusing my remark with another member's issue. Said member's post was removed by a moderator from this thread (well before your comment).

The OP's issue - the one my remark was referring to - involves not being legally married but appearing "too married" for a K-1.