Marriage other than in USA

[pushbrk 14,005]

There seems to be a lack of reason here on VJ lately. It's a shame. The LAST thing this process needs is for people to be increasing the fear-factor.

:lol:

TracyTN,

My sense is that the OP, being new to this issue, did not appreciate the semantics and you, from what you say in your post here, apparently took him literally. My interpretatino was that when he wrote "marry" he was thinking "have a 'wedding' ceremony".

My belief is that the first step in answering such questions should be to clarify with the poster what they really mean before getting into the consequences of a marriage. They may not be talking about marriage at all, it's just their habit to use that word.

Yodrak

Yodrak -

I'ts quite clear what the OP was asking....

I recently got engaged to my boyfriend from the states and we plan to go the K1 route. I really want the wedding in Canada but I'm concerned it will impact my entering into the states. Under th K1 visa, does my legal marriage have to be in America? Can i have a ceremony in Canada and have the legal marriage in the states? SO confused about this process!

Yes it is clear the OP asked two questions. It is also clear they got complete and accurate answers to both. The short answer to both questions is "yes'.

Yes, your legal marriage has to be in the US.

Yes, you can have a ceremoney in Canada and have the legal marriage in the States.

I don't see any room for confusion unless the context of the questions and answers is ignored.

[TimsDaisy 0]

TracyTN,

My sense is that the OP, being new to this issue, did not appreciate the semantics and you, from what you say in your post here, apparently took him literally. My interpretatino was that when he wrote "marry" he was thinking "have a 'wedding' ceremony".

My belief is that the first step in answering such questions should be to clarify with the poster what they really mean before getting into the consequences of a marriage. They may not be talking about marriage at all, it's just their habit to use that word.

Yodrak

Well, if I added to any of the OPs confusion, then I apologize. That was not my intention.

FWIW, I was keying off his/her second sentence, which began 'I really want the wedding in Canada' - thus my suggestion to do just that and then pursue the K3.

I think I can see the reason why someone would organize things this way. Part of it, to me, stems from the fact that for many couples (at least for us) immigration itself is just a byproduct of marriage. The legalities are something we go through because we need to. (I suppose that's an obvious statement - no one is here for fun, I'm pretty sure of that!)

I know we went the K1 route because, for me, I'd rather be separated from my fiance than from my husband. I suppose that's a bit of semantics too since they're both names for the same person - the one I want to spend my life with. But it made a difference in my mind.

But if you think about it from a timeline point of view, if you get engaged on Jan 1 and want a ceremony in the foreign land and want to be together in the US ASAP, then it may make more sense to pop that I-129F in the mail on Jan 2 and start that ball rolling while planning a purely ceremonial, non legal event, in the foreign spouse's land. Otherwise, you plan a big event, which could take time, and put off filing for the K3 for potentially many months, setting your apart-time to be even longer.

I'm not saying that's the way I would do it. We want the ceremony to be here in the US, hence the K1. But I can see why some couples might want to structure it the way they do. It's on them to make it legally kosher. It doesn't fall to any of us, nor does it affect us if they do it that way. It's not an unfair way to do things. It has no bearing on any of us here.

For whatever it's worth - and this is anecdotal and STILL not a recommendation, but just relating a story - my best friend's brother just had his wedding in Mexico to his Mexican fiance. He didn't use a lawyer. He'd never heard of this site or any others. He made an infopass appointment, went in and got pointers, filed, and was amazed when the NOA2 came in half the time is said on the processing website (not knowing that was bogus). Because she was moving here, away from family and friends, they decided it would be better to have the big traditional Mexican wedding celebration in her hometown, honeymoon in Cancun as was her lifelong dream, and then pack up the car and head back to the U.S.

They're here now, happily settled in L.A. And this all happened within about the last two weeks.

Is that a blanket recommendation to go for it, no, of course not. But it's an example that outside of VJ exists a world of non-freaked out people. People who don't see fraud under every rock and denial behind every tree. Some of those people out there probably do make boneheaded mistakes and end up very sorry and sad. But many just go through the process with no problems.

Bottom line: I get why people might structure it one way either on purpose or because they find out later in the process that they won't be able to travel home as soon as they thought when booking wedding plans.

[Yodrak 7]

devilette,

Yes, you're right. I got emotionally caught up in the debate and lost track of the original question! Thanks for bringing me back.

Now that you've brought me back, it's interesting that this thread went off track. "Can i have a ceremony in Canada and have the legal marriage in the states?" - yes, your legal marriage does have to be in America, and yes, you can have a ceremony in Canada as long as the ceremony that you envision does not create a legal marriage. That should be a no-brainer for the people who have participated in these discussions before.

Yodrak

Yodrak -

I'ts quite clear what the OP was asking....

I recently got engaged to my boyfriend from the states and we plan to go the K1 route. I really want the wedding in Canada but I'm concerned it will impact my entering into the states. Under th K1 visa, does my legal marriage have to be in America? Can i have a ceremony in Canada and have the legal marriage in the states? SO confused about this process!

Edited June 19, 2007 by Yodrak

[msu17 0]

Or hold off on the ceremony in Canada till you are married in the US, file AOS and get your AP and then do it with no worries... That's how we are doing it for my SO's family back in the UK. Immingration does not lend itself to planning

[rebeccajo 14]

The ceremonies pushbrk referred to are traditional for China and other eastern nations. They are also common for other areas of the globe as well.

They aren't however common for much of the western world and are even frowned upon by some religious officiants.

Those are my areas of concern in this topic. What is cultural in one part of the world can be easily explained to and accepted by immigration authorities. Something outside the norm may be more difficult should questions arise.

There is always the technical right and wrong in a situation. That technicality may not always translate easily to a real-life scenario. I don't believe a recommendation of caution is fear-mongering.

But then that's just my opinion.

[pushbrk 14,005]

The ceremonies pushbrk referred to are traditional for China and other eastern nations. They are also common for other areas of the globe as well.

They aren't however common for much of the western world and are even frowned upon by some religious officiants.

Those are my areas of concern in this topic. What is cultural in one part of the world can be easily explained to and accepted by immigration authorities. Something outside the norm may be more difficult should questions arise.

There is always the technical right and wrong in a situation. That technicality may not always translate easily to a real-life scenario. I don't believe a recommendation of caution is fear-mongering.

But then that's just my opinion.

One need not disclose the fact that a non-legal ceremony took place. In fact, that was part of the caution given when saying it's ok to have one. Who cares what som religious officiants frown about unless they are the officiant at your ceremony?

[rebeccajo 14]

The ceremonies pushbrk referred to are traditional for China and other eastern nations. They are also common for other areas of the globe as well.

They aren't however common for much of the western world and are even frowned upon by some religious officiants.

Those are my areas of concern in this topic. What is cultural in one part of the world can be easily explained to and accepted by immigration authorities. Something outside the norm may be more difficult should questions arise.

There is always the technical right and wrong in a situation. That technicality may not always translate easily to a real-life scenario. I don't believe a recommendation of caution is fear-mongering.

But then that's just my opinion.

One need not disclose the fact that a non-legal ceremony took place. In fact, that was part of the caution given when saying it's ok to have one. Who cares what som religious officiants frown about unless they are the officiant at your ceremony?

I'm not sure I get your point. I found no fault in your original statement. I was only commenting that what is traditional for the part of the world your SO is from is not necessarily traditional for others.

[jundp 191]

There are other reasons to have a ceremony outside the US. Its pretty unlikely that my fiancees parents will even be granted a visa to the US, much less any of her other relatives. Not to mention, it would be rather expensive for her family and relatives to travel here, even if they were granted a visa.

We preferred to take K-1 for a few reasons. 1. We could get started right away rather than waiting another 6-9 months to make another trip to actually get married. 2. Its shorter than k-3 or CR-1. 3. We preferred to be together once we are married and not apart anymore.

We will be doing a simple ceremony and reception in Indonesia before we leave together to the US. For us, its the best option for all the parties involved. We get to take the faster route at getting together by getting a K-1 visa. My fiancees family gets to celebrate our wedding while we are there.

I have to agree with Dan + Gemvita and with TimsDaisy. As long as people understand the laws of the country they are having a ceremony in, I don't see why people here get so upset with the suggestion?

There are plenty of countries in which a religious ceremony is not considered legal. In order to make the wedding into a LEGAL MARRIAGE one must file paperwork at the civil registry or a courthouse, etc. A pastor/preacher/priest/officiant cannot "accidentally" do that because only the man and woman applying for the legal marriage can do so. The reasons for having a wedding celebration in the Non-USC's home country generally have to do with wanting to incude his/her family and friends who are otherwise unable to attend a legal US ceremony. I figure if my fiance is leaving his country, his family, and his friends to be with me, the least I can do is have a celebration in his home town so that they can all be involved. We checked the laws beforehand to make sure that the celebration is non-legally binding. If asked at immigration if we are married, our truthful and non-fraudulent answer will be "No."

And again, many people on here are offering anecdotal answers and not "advice." Anyone who would blindly take advice from a person on a website who isn't an immigration attorney and then complain if things don't work out, should probably not be getting married or having a wedding in the first place. I don't mean that to be rude, but seriously, I read and gather information to help augment my own research and in the end, the advice, comments, suggestions, anecdotes, are just that.

Why all the anger and fuss?

[pushbrk 14,005]

The ceremonies pushbrk referred to are traditional for China and other eastern nations. They are also common for other areas of the globe as well.

They aren't however common for much of the western world and are even frowned upon by some religious officiants.

Those are my areas of concern in this topic. What is cultural in one part of the world can be easily explained to and accepted by immigration authorities. Something outside the norm may be more difficult should questions arise.

There is always the technical right and wrong in a situation. That technicality may not always translate easily to a real-life scenario. I don't believe a recommendation of caution is fear-mongering.

But then that's just my opinion.

One need not disclose the fact that a non-legal ceremony took place. In fact, that was part of the caution given when saying it's ok to have one. Who cares what som religious officiants frown about unless they are the officiant at your ceremony?

I'm not sure I get your point. I found no fault in your original statement. I was only commenting that what is traditional for the part of the world your SO is from is not necessarily traditional for others.

I never thought you were finding fault with my statement. I'm simply saying there is no need to explain a non-legal ceremony to immigration authorities or even mention it. See the bolded portion of your earlier post above. Further, my earlier post didn't address any traditions.

I'm mention one here though because it is related to the discussion. The terms Laogong and Laopo are commonly used in much of South China, to mean Husband and Wife, even though their literal translation is really more like "sweatheart". We began using those terms before we were married. We did marry in China, so this was not an issue at interview but K1 applicants should be very careful not to refer to their fiances using terminology that could be interpreted as "spouse".

I take it now, your post was simply commentary. In that vein, many church authorities would refuse to hold a "wedding" ceremony that would give guests the impression a marriage was occuring, unless one actually was occuring. My own church would be a good example of that. No officiant would officiate at such a ceremony. There could be no "By the authority granted me by the (jurisdiction) as a ... I pronounce you husband and wife."

[rebeccajo 14]

I take it now, your post was simply commentary. In that vein, many church authorities would refuse to hold a "wedding" ceremony that would give guests the impression a marriage was occuring, unless one actually was occuring. My own church would be a good example of that. No officiant would officiate at such a ceremony. There could be no "By the authority granted me by the (jurisdiction) as a ... I pronounce you husband and wife."

You've rounded the corner to the point I was trying unsuccessfully to make and I thank you for that.

It's true the best way to avoid a problem is not to mention the 'ceremony'. Especially a western one as (IMO) it's usually NOT normal for the party/dressing up/fancy stuff aspect of a western wedding to not go hand-in-hand with the legal part. I realize this may be very far fetched, but earlier in the thread I pondered about a well-meaning officiant 'accidentally' recording documents out of habit. It might also be far-fetched to ponder that an officiant might record a marriage certificate purposely as it could be their religious perspective that as the blessing of God has occurred, so should the blessings of man.

[Yodrak 7]

I wonder if a well-meaning officiant would also 'accidently' forge the couple's signatures to the documents in order to get them recorded? (I can't imagine that a couple who did not want to have anything recorded would sign recording documents.)

Yodrak

..... earlier in the thread I pondered about a well-meaning officiant 'accidentally' recording documents out of habit. It might also be far-fetched to ponder that an officiant might record a marriage certificate purposely as it could be their religious perspective that as the blessing of God has occurred, so should the blessings of man.

[TimsDaisy 0]

Can we all agree that none of us here is an expert on what constitutes marriage in every single country from which there might be a visa applicant?

Can we agree that any applicant will pursue any order of operations (visa, legal marriage, ceremony) at his/her own peril?

And lastly, can we all agree that any applicant bears the ultimate responsibility for researching what does and doesn't make for a legal marriage at home (and for that matter, once they get here so they make sure they get LEGALLY married to file for AOS)?

Past that, I'm really not sure what else needs to be said here? We can come up with doomsday scenarios from now until, uh, doomsday. But the basic facts that research is essential and applicants bear the burden of ensuring compliance with immigration law and regulation don't change.

[rebeccajo 14]

Y...

Are ya telling' me I'm being silly? LOL

'Tis ok if you are. Like I said I know it's far fetched.

*shrugs*

You know me. I just don't ever want to see anybody encounter any difficulties they had the slightest hand in creating themselves. It's my overly-cautious fear-mongering perspective the best way to avoid this is not saying "I do" or "I will" until it's really D-day.

Becca

I wonder if a well-meaning officiant would also 'accidently' forge the couple's signatures to the documents in order to get them recorded? (I can't imagine that a couple who did not want to have anything recorded would sign recording documents.)

Yodrak

..... earlier in the thread I pondered about a well-meaning officiant 'accidentally' recording documents out of habit. It might also be far-fetched to ponder that an officiant might record a marriage certificate purposely as it could be their religious perspective that as the blessing of God has occurred, so should the blessings of man.

[Yodrak 7]

Becca,

Sorta. Are we having fun yet?

Yodrak

Y...

Are ya telling' me I'm being silly? LOL

'Tis ok if you are. Like I said I know it's far fetched.

*shrugs*

You know me. I just don't ever want to see anybody encounter any difficulties they had the slightest hand in creating themselves. It's my overly-cautious fear-mongering perspective the best way to avoid this is not saying "I do" or "I will" until it's really D-day.

Becca

I wonder if a well-meaning officiant would also 'accidently' forge the couple's signatures to the documents in order to get them recorded? (I can't imagine that a couple who did not want to have anything recorded would sign recording documents.)

Yodrak

..... earlier in the thread I pondered about a well-meaning officiant 'accidentally' recording documents out of habit. It might also be far-fetched to ponder that an officiant might record a marriage certificate purposely as it could be their religious perspective that as the blessing of God has occurred, so should the blessings of man.

[sunandmoon 450]

. . People are either married or they are not. Anybody who doesn't know the difference should not be handling their own visa paperwork.

hmm.. My wife, then fiancee, did the paperwork ourselves and she made it here just fine. we chose to have an engagement party instead of a wedding ceromony to avoid any possible complications from having a wedding ceromony. maybe we don't know the difference, but she made it here, no problem.