how to best use the 90 days prior to marriage k-1

[steve55 0]

You may find this shocking but I agree with most of what you've actually written. If two people agree they're going to see how it works out for X days before they actually marry, that's an honest and valid approach. If one person leads the other to believe they are committed to marriage, then on the sly uses as much of the 90 day window as possible to snoop and test their partner to find reasons to break their promise to marry, that's not honest. It's treachery.

I don't really care what the government's intention was/is either but since I know the intention wasn't a trial period, I'm going to disagree with anybody who says otherwise to justify misleading a fiance(e).

I would say that if either partner is being dishonest, then you have bigger problems than worrying about how to use the 90 days. Both dishonest is even worse.

BINGO!! Exactly. As long as there is honesty about how each partner sees it, thats what matters.

In my case, my fiance knows the score and that I do really want to marry her, BUT, she also undertsands we havent been able to spend alot of time together which we will be able to do once she gets here and then see how we do when we are here in the USA together. Honesty and truthfulness is the key. If all goes well as expected, we will marry.

[bakofoil 27]

The process *IS* sufficiently legally well-defined. It's defined in (thanks Rebeccajo ) 8 CFR 214.2. It is by definition sufficiently well-defined, because it addresses the process it's supposed to address. To say it's not sufficiently well-defined because it doesn't support your argument does not strengthen your argument.

umm, you were the one picking holes in the process and saying that the 90 day period could be interpreted as just about anything you wish. If people are thinking it's not *really* about having a firm intention to marry then the document is about as squiffy as the eyes in the condescending smiley you placed in your reply. I think you're the only person who cares about winning the argument.

What I care about is there are people who are making commitments to people they are not that serious about keeping and who seem to have no interest in how their decisions impact on others.

Ok, let's do it this way.

Have the non-USC go into the interview and say that the USC is going to use the 90 days to 'get to know' the fiance and see what happens.

Seriously, this is really a no brainer and oh so ridiculous that this is still up for interpretation.

And why exactly would somebody do that?

Why wouldn't you if the law is as well-defined as you say it is?

That was a rhetorical question. I'm done

[pushbrk 12,221]

8 CFR 214.2 to be exact.

See: http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1437.html

N1.1 Classification Under INA 101(a)(15)(K)(i)

An alien may be classified as a K-1 if he or she is the beneficiary of an approved I-129F, Petition to Classify Status of Alien Fiance(e) for issuance of Nonimmigrant Visa. If the consular officer is satisfied that the alien is qualified to receive such a visa, the alien may be admitted to the United States for the purpose of concluding a marriage to the petitioner within a 90-day period.

In my experience "intent" as it pertains to laws and rules is quite relevant. I sit on a board that makes and changes rules for a specific sport/competition circuit. Many of the rule changes are intended to change existing or one time behavior so the original intent is clarified. The rule changes are even referred to by the names of the people who did something to bring about the need for the change.

I think many of us agree that although IMBRA was a decent idea, it is so poorly written that the intent is not only not accomplished but things that didn't need fixing are now all messed up. Intent matters but it is often only implied rather than clearly stated, during actual law or rule writing. This results in many incorrect inferences. I think both DOS and USCIS have made it clear what is intended and not intended with respect to the 90 days. What people will do is up to them.

At the same time, we are engaging in a discussion including varied opinions as to how much bending of the intent is adviseable. It's what we do here. I described some behavior as, IMO, treachery. Nevertheless, the behavior is legal.

[LoriLawless 0]

This is about the most embarrassing displays of backslapping I've seen here on VJ....holy moses...

*yawn*

Ignorant response IMO. Lisa, you have some good views. I agree with some of the things you say. However, this is a forum for people going through real life ####### and although we all have the option to judge, you seem to thrive on being "right", no matter the cost or who’s feelings are hurt.

Sometimes you have to step back and realize the people are different. We aren't all from the same country, we aren't all from the same religions, and we don't have the same opinions. While you may think yours is the right opinion, and I may agree with you, attacking people and just being mean in a forum like this is just…arrogant and not justified.

If you don’t mind, when you get rid of the pumpkin butt I’d appreciate you letting me know, cause I have my sigs turned off as well, and I want to keep up with people’s timelines, but I can’t until you get rid of that. It’s not work safe, so I had to turn all sigs off.

It's obvious what the technical term of K1 refers to. There's no need to document what it means, like you said Lisa, if you were to go into an interview and say what your intentions were, you would understand that guides are quite accurate. I see your point there and completely agree with it.

[Fandango 1,439]

BG RAWKS! heh

[steve55 0]

We've been debating what the 90 days is for, and I've put that to bed straight from the horse's mouth.

Put to bed? Nope, not really.

I already admitted before my main post with the links that per the USCIS point of view, you are 100% correct Lisa. But Im just saying that most of the experts and immigration expert sites like visa jourmney and immigration attorneys seem to take a different point of view on this. Legally, as per the USCIS view, you are right Lisa. But realistically, as per the experts in the links I provided, including visa journey.com, you are wrong.

Soooo, did you send that email to visa journey admin yet to correct their erroneous ways? (LOL)

Oh, and GOD HELP US if we all always did as the government says. Go live in communist china if thats what your cup of tea is.

[Todd Gill 0]

We've been debating what the 90 days is for, and I've put that to bed straight from the horse's mouth.

Put to bed? Nope, not really.

I already admitted before my main post with the links that per the USCIS point of view, you are 100% correct Lisa. But Im just saying that most of the experts and immigration expert sites like visa jourmney and immigration attorneys seem to take a different point of view on this. Legally, as per the USCIS view, you are right Lisa. But realistically, as per the experts in the links I provided, including visa journey.com, you are wrong.

Soooo, did you send that email to visa journey admin yet to correct their erroneous ways? (LOL)

Oh, and GOD HELP US if we all always did as the government says. Go live in communist china if thats what your cup of tea is.

Hey! My future wife is from China!

[Fandango 1,439]

Legally, as per the USCIS view, you are right Lisa.

Thx!

[steve55 0]

But that's the thing....while mostly everything you said is 100% factually accurate, I have to disagree with the last 2 lines. It's not a personal opinion that a K-1 is not a 'get to know you' visa.

If you can show me in the Code where it's prohibited, I'll concede.

Well I showed you where it's written in black and white on the USCIS website. If that's not enough, then I dunno what to tell ya.

Lisa, first of all, try letting your hair down for a moment and stop being so ####### and judgemental

WHat you keep claiming to show is where the USCIS says its not a "getting to know you better period". BUT what rebeccajo is saying is that as long as the intent to marry is there, no law is being broken. SHe is right about that.

Like me for example, I DO INTEND to marry my fiance. BUT, at the SAME TIME, Im going to be sure we get along in person in every day life here and that she is comfortable with life here with me in the USA during the 90 day period.

Intent = YES (thus no law is broken as rebeccajo is saying)

Getting to know each other better to be sure = YES ,(though this may fly in the face of the USCIS quote you posted earlier. Admitting this much at the USCIS interview would probably get you denied.

rebeccajo is correct in her assesment

[steve55 0]

Ok, let's do it this way.

Have the non-USC go into the interview and say that the USC is going to use the 90 days to 'get to know' the fiance and see what happens.

Seriously, this is really a no brainer and oh so ridiculous that this is still up for interpretation.

AGREED LISA!!

TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR, ITS THE ONLY WAY!!

Reminds me of when I was interviewing for a pilot position with a freight outfit paying $15K per year. In my interview they asked me "steve, if Delta or AMerican airlines offered you a $100,000/yr job 2 weeks after we hired you to work for us, would you take their offer?.

Thinking that they appreciate honesty, and the honorable answer, I said "yes of course". Only later did they tell me that I didnt get the job because I said I would leave their podunk outfit for a major airline. I could give so many more examples.

Folks , in life, you must say what they want to hear. or else you are UNFAIRLY screwed!! Its served me very well in life. Unfortunately, very often , being honest will make you the loser. Good/honest guys finish last.

[steve55 0]

If we want to discuss the morals of the system and those effected by it, we should discuss how our Government gives preference over USCs to big business employment visa processing and premium processing available to many visa types (but not K-1/K-3), a documented alien filing for their spouse to join them, etc.

EXACTLY, and thats what Im trying to tell Lisa. The govt is often F'd up big times. Some things the govt does are good and helpful, but much of the govt policies and rules are FUBAR and wasteful and not realistic,...such as the idea that the 90 days cant be part of a "making sure" period during your intent to marry. Lisa is right about the USCIS officer will turn you down faster than you can say " #######?" if you say anything other than you are 100% sure you wil marry.

Lisa and some others are trying to turn into a moralistic issue when it is not at all. As attys and even this visajourney webiste specifically says, its ok and even expected that for many folks, the 90 days is truly for making sure both of you are sure of your intent to marry. I pasted weblinks all over the place how widely held this belief is in the professinal expert immigration community. The govt however would not agree with them.

Folks, as we all know, the govt is often FUBAR and inefficient. We all know where we first saw the tern FUBAR in saving private ryan, referring to the govt's inefficiency and screwed upness. Also reminds me of the movie appllo 13 where the air filters in the lunar lander were round while the ones in the capsul were square. Thats when the flight director said "someone please tell me this isnt a govt run operation".

[steve55 0]

We've been debating what the 90 days is for, and I've put that to bed straight from the horse's mouth.

Put to bed? Nope, not really.

I already admitted before my main post with the links that per the USCIS point of view, you are 100% correct Lisa. But Im just saying that most of the experts and immigration expert sites like visa jourmney and immigration attorneys seem to take a different point of view on this. Legally, as per the USCIS view, you are right Lisa. But realistically, as per the experts in the links I provided, including visa journey.com, you are wrong.

Soooo, did you send that email to visa journey admin yet to correct their erroneous ways? (LOL)

Oh, and GOD HELP US if we all always did as the government says. Go live in communist china if thats what your cup of tea is.

Hey! My future wife is from China!

He he he. My aplogies

[no name 1]

So, let me get this straight...if you are arrogant, condescending & judgemental to a poster here on VJ - and someone else agrees with you - they get a shout out in the thread. How incredibly immature.

[britty 1]

My husband and I filed for a K-1 after 4 years of dating. He asked me to marry him, and being madly in love with him, I said yes. Regardless of government requirements and policy, you should file for a K-1 when you decide you want to spend the rest of your life with your SO. If you have ANY doubts, then you are simply not ready for marriage yet and should wait until you are, IMO. If you think the 90 day grace period could be used as a vehicle to really test your relationship then again, why would you even contemplate marriage in the first place? My husband and I had a few fights during the 90 day grace, and there were days when I could have killed him (and him me), but NEVER did we have any doubts about marrying. We all go through such an emotional rollercoaster on our K-1 journeys. I can't believe any two people would put themselves through that if they weren't 100% confident in their decision to be together.

[Fandango 1,439]

So, let me get this straight...if you are arrogant, condescending & judgemental to a poster here on VJ - and someone else agrees with you - they get a shout out in the thread. How incredibly immature.

*checks Dev's posts*

seems so!

*latherrinserepeat*