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

[archie07 0]

I cant get my photo to upload... its less than 150 x 150 that sucks...

I know you want to see it...

I updated my timeline. Took awhile but it worked.

[LoriLawless 1]

[archie07 0]

Do you know her phone number???

[LoriLawless 1]

Do you know her phone number???

[dcl766 0]

I agree with you. I made a mistake.

Honestly, the post made me uncomfortable and when I saw other people stating their true feelings, I felt like I should too.

I'm sorry.

Don't apologize, Laura. You are entitled to your opinion as well as anyone else on here. You are also entitled to change it.

Now that's good advice!!

[Bob & Kim 0]

Do you know her phone number???

Yeah, I vote that we get the orange and black paints and paint her @ss and insert it on every other post in this thread!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is the question I have-would the OP [ or did the OP] or his fiance go to the interview stating he /they would be using the 90 days as a sort of "trial" period? if so-it would make the letter of intent filed with the K-1 rather redundant, no?

The fact that the visa is good for 90 days pretty much implies a "cooling off" period was anticipated. Otherwise it would be more like 10 or 30 days. Remember that the K-1 dates back to the '80's. I don't know what the filing times were back then, but I'll bet you could get your "foreign bride" into the US within a couple months. Couple that with the fact that there was no internet to exchange emails and photos, plus the high cost of long distance, and you could be meeting someone at the airport who you fell in love with on vacation, but who you really don't know. So I don't think any interviewer would have a problem with the beneficiary saying at the interview that they were going to marry towards the end of the 90 day period. That's what it was designed for.

But that's not what you said at the beginning of this post...You said a " cooling off period"-go to the interview and say that.

This is the question I have-would the OP [ or did the OP] or his fiance go to the interview stating he /they would be using the 90 days as a sort of "trial" period? if so-it would make the letter of intent filed with the K-1 rather redundant, no?

The fact that the visa is good for 90 days pretty much implies a "cooling off" period was anticipated. Otherwise it would be more like 10 or 30 days. Remember that the K-1 dates back to the '80's. I don't know what the filing times were back then, but I'll bet you could get your "foreign bride" into the US within a couple months. Couple that with the fact that there was no internet to exchange emails and photos, plus the high cost of long distance, and you could be meeting someone at the airport who you fell in love with on vacation, but who you really don't know. So I don't think any interviewer would have a problem with the beneficiary saying at the interview that they were going to marry towards the end of the 90 day period. That's what it was designed for.

You can bet your azz that if you said it was a ''trial period' or 'cooling off' period, that you'd never have gotten approved. I think you're being a bit semantical in nature here...because while it's not a problem to marry at the end of the 90, it's not designed for the purpose of 'cooling off'. I mean focking hell, your fiance just got here and you're gonna 'cool off'????

Don't use the 80s to justify marrying a stranger.

And btw, did you actually READ your letter of intent that you signed?

GMTA Lisa.

We're in tune as always, marra

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

[Fandango 1,440]

Do you know her phone number???

Yeah, I vote that we get the orange and black paints and paint her @ss and insert it on every other post in this thread!

But it would make such a smaller pumpkin!

[Fandango 1,440]

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

*yawn*

[steve55 0]

BUt, even this very website VISA JOURNEY says the following about the K-1

May allow for a "get to

know your fiance better"

period before marriage,

since the visa is good

for 90 days.

So,.....lisa, why dont you send the owners of this forum an email and correct their erroneous ways of thinking?? (LOL). he he he. Sorry babe, but the writing's on the wall,..so to speak

Straight from USCIS....yellow and red emphasis mine

http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/A2.pdf

kthxbye!

As I already said, you are technically correct. I said that much already. You have to tell the government what they want to hear, rather than approach things with realism and common sense.

OBviously there are two points of view. There is the legal one as per Lisa's quote form the USCIS, and then there is the REAL LIFE point of view that is supported by most immigration atty;s and experts on the subject such as visa journey.com

So LIsa, will you be emailing the VISA JOURNEY owners to correct their erroneous info??? You can send them your picture link here with your evidence of what the USCIS says about it. Hmmmmm?? They may listen to you

[Fandango 1,440]

So LIsa, will you be emailing the VISA JOURNEY owners to correct their erroneous info??? You can send them your picture link here with your evidence of what the USCIS says about it. Hmmmmm?? They may listen to you

Actually, I will...I don't think there should be any 'official' information on this site which contradicts the USCIS site. Whether or not E agrees will remain to be seen.

Thx for reminding me!

[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 14,055]

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 1]

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.