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

[Fandango 1,440]

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 1,440]

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 1,440]

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*

[no name 1]

Weren't you told not to reply to me?

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

I think most people can distinguish between merely expressing an opinion and bullying somebody else for expressing theirs.

the key word being 'most' Steven...

how true.......

Charles, you obviously know no boundaries & for that I pity you.

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

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*

[bakofoil 27]

I'm done

Me too. I've said everything I have to say, and I tried to present it in a clear and reasonable manner. However, you and LisaD insist on manipulating it to fit your little zingers and sound bites so that you can trade smug little comments between each other. If you were really willing to listen to and comprehend what I and others have said, rather than deliberately misunderstanding, you might still not agree with it, but at least your opinions would at least be a little more informed. I can respect honest disagreements, but I cannot respect deliberate miscomprehension.

Well I figure I have the right to defend this misrepresentation and personalisation of my part in this debate.

I too can respect honest disagreements. You may have noticed that some of my posts defended your view when some people were missing your point and assuming you were in the same league as the OP. In some of your later posts, you made blanket statements about female beneficiaries, about countries of origin and the ease of displacement and displayed an unwillingness to listen to points that were being made about circumstances relating to both the petitioner and beneficiary's commitment within the K1 application procedure. Points which are highly relevant to the process but which you appear to ignore in favour of standing blinkered by a personal viewpoint on how you and your SO choose to use the 90 days and how that view might be supported legally by documentation. A view I said I didn't disagree with in essence as it is a mutual one. I also stated in a previous post that I have no reason to believe that your commitment to your fiancee is open to question whatsoever. However, I don't recall this debate ever being about you personally. Or about Lisa D or me. The debate isn't really even about the OP anymore.

Rather than being a willful effort to gang-bash you (I am perfectly able to form and articulate my own opinions), my part in this debate was triggered initially by what I thought might be a good thread, i.e. advice about driving licences, SSN's, work experience, getting involved in the community. How the petitioner might cope with helping the beneficiary in those early days of adjustment - which I think you would agree would have been a beneficial thread. One doesn't need to go further than post #1 to see that the thread clearly wasn't going to deliver what it said on the packet.

The thread has since evolved into an honest discussion/debate about what people feel the K1 process is about. Clearly we're not all going to agree. But the main point was about INTENT and I believe Pushbrk's comments clearly and succinctly answered anyone's doubts about what intent actually means despite the fact that various contradictory documentation has been presented. I am certainly not arguing with your point that the document you quoted allows you to bring a fiance(e) to the US and spend the 90 days as you wish and that should you choose not to marry no law is broken. That is fact.

Nor will I argue with Lisa's point about the importance of the letter of intent in the petition stage or the fact that the non-USC would be wise not to state at the interview stage that the USC is using the 90 days following visa issuance as a trial-period. Those points may not have been factually backed up but this is a process which does not objectively bind itself to wording on the document you quoted. Ultimately every application is approved at the whim of a CO who uses a framework of law to guide him/her but who will use subjectivity to decide the fate of your application. You yourself used a good analogy that you would say you liked pink if that was what swayed an approval of your application. If you have been around the VJ site long enough you will have come across a number of couples who didn't present what the CO wanted to hear at interview. People who clearly do have the intent to stay together because they are still waiting ...not 90 days on, but 300, 400, 500 days and more from when they originally hoped to have a K1 visa in hand.

The debate is not just about arguing what is factually true or what untruths can be engineered to fit the application. This process is more than just words on a document. It is an ideological process that involves careful thought and consideration by those involved on how this decision will impact on every aspect of each others lives. Ultimately, there are people here waiting patiently in line to be with the loves of their lives. They don't want a trial period. They trust, respect and love their partners. They are not thinking about their fiance(e) as a potential partner. One doesn't get engaged to someone they are not serious about marrying, you date and take time over that kind of decision. Many have considered the pitfalls, difficulties and merits of being with their loved one and they have started the process of adjustment before visa issuance. Yes, there is always the possibility of being wrong and things not working out quite the way you planned but that can be true of any situation. The point is, you go into this wholeheartedly because you are dealing with not just your own life, but the lives of your partner, yours and their family. It's personal opinion whether you concentrate on ensuring the marriage is a success or focus on what may go wrong and cover your back in the event of a break-up.

The lack of trust shown by some for their partners and negative commentary on their partners life back home just indicates that for some this process is an avenue for 'trying before you buy' and that they have no regard for the impact of this decision on the beneficiary's life back home. It has been evident from a few of the posts on this thread that there is a strain of opinion that some women should be grateful for this opportunity and it's really no biggy whether she has to be sent back home or not. I strongly object to any person being used in this manner. And I guess that view is precisely why the K1 process is as long and involved as it is.

For me, the reason why I have even bothered to respond at all on this thread is that it has highlighted some protection of two important groups of people;

1) beneficiaries from countries deemed to be at some disadvantage by comparison with the US

2) people new to the process looking for information on how to deal with various stages of the application procedure

The advice you are advocating is that the law is so clearly well-defined that it is acceptable to use the 90 day period any way you wish but that is simply not the case and regardless of whether you think I am point-scoring and back-slapping with Lisa or not, she made a very strong and important point. Whilst the document you quote does not define how that period should be used (which also highlights the fact that it is NOT well-defined) and therefore any use of that time period is lawful, the fact remains that the individuals who ultimately make the decisions on K1 petitions do actually expect you to have a well-considered intention to marry within that 90 day period and not use it as a trial period. It's going to take a lot of hassle, time and money to prove to them that actually the document doesn't stipulate a clear intent to marry at all.

For your information I don't even know Lisa. If by agreeing with the rationality of many of her points and disagreeing with some of yours you assume we are in some smug little club together being wilfully "dishonest" and "deliberately misunderstanding" your view well I'm sorry but you appear to have an inability to accept an alternate viewpoint at all. You would have seen had you read my posts in detail that this is not at all my intention.

After all, intention has been what has underpinned this thread and what will ultimately decide the fate of any K1 application.