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

[rebeccajo 14]

Babblesgirl -

You have entered into a discussion that cannot be won. Perhaps more importantly, there is less intention by some individuals to make salient points than there is to continue an ongoing sociological examination of the perceived traits of certain 'types' of relationships.

I mentioned earlier it isn't our place as posters to define 'intent' categorically without interjecting our personal opinion. This thread is a perfect example of that very thing happening. What 'intent' is - in the eye of one petitioner and beneficiary - may not seem adequate to others. Insofar as immigration is considered, 'intent' can only be defined by the letter of the law - thus my reference to the INA. Case law will further influence any decisions made by a court.

On the other hand, cultural norms and anecdotal experience will influence decisions made by consular officers. It is this stage of the process that many of us seem to be discussing, as there have been many comments about saying thus-and-such or behaving a certain way at the interview.

Suffice it to say there are a number of posters on this site who are apparently fascinated by the relationships between petitioners and beneficiaries of certain nations. The validity of these relationships are often put under the microscope of these posters societal petri dishes for ad nauseum discussion. I believe that is not our intended purpose here. It creates a defensive atmosphere in the community. Unfortunately, that is the intent of some.

[archie07 0]

Babblesgirl -

You have entered into a discussion that cannot be won. Perhaps more importantly, there is less intention by some individuals to make salient points than there is to continue an ongoing sociological examination of the perceived traits of certain 'types' of relationships.

I mentioned earlier it isn't our place as posters to define 'intent' categorically without interjecting our personal opinion. This thread is a perfect example of that very thing happening. What 'intent' is - in the eye of one petitioner and beneficiary - may not seem adequate to others. Insofar as immigration is considered, 'intent' can only be defined by the letter of the law - thus my reference to the INA. Case law will further influence any decisions made by a court.

On the other hand, cultural norms and anecdotal experience will influence decisions made by consular officers. It is this stage of the process that many of us seem to be discussing, as there have been many comments about saying thus-and-such or behaving a certain way at the interview.

Suffice it to say there are a number of posters on this site who are apparently fascinated by the relationships between petitioners and beneficiaries of certain nations. The validity of these relationships are often put under the microscope of these posters societal petri dishes for ad nauseum discussion. I believe that is not our intended purpose here. It creates a defensive atmosphere in the community. Unfortunately, that is the intent of some.

[Seattle2Cebu 0]

you got her number... some people like to pick fights to get attention I think

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.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Seattle2Cebu

[bakofoil 27]

Babblesgirl -

You have entered into a discussion that cannot be won. Perhaps more importantly, there is less intention by some individuals to make salient points than there is to continue an ongoing sociological examination of the perceived traits of certain 'types' of relationships.

I mentioned earlier it isn't our place as posters to define 'intent' categorically without interjecting our personal opinion. This thread is a perfect example of that very thing happening. What 'intent' is - in the eye of one petitioner and beneficiary - may not seem adequate to others. Insofar as immigration is considered, 'intent' can only be defined by the letter of the law - thus my reference to the INA. Case law will further influence any decisions made by a court.

On the other hand, cultural norms and anecdotal experience will influence decisions made by consular officers. It is this stage of the process that many of us seem to be discussing, as there have been many comments about saying thus-and-such or behaving a certain way at the interview.

Suffice it to say there are a number of posters on this site who are apparently fascinated by the relationships between petitioners and beneficiaries of certain nations. The validity of these relationships are often put under the microscope of these posters societal petri dishes for ad nauseum discussion. I believe that is not our intended purpose here. It creates a defensive atmosphere in the community. Unfortunately, that is the intent of some.

I agree Rebecca. However, it was not my intention to win the argument but merely to enter into the overall discussion. I also felt that I should defend the accusation that my posts were dishonest.

In retrospect, I will hold my hands up to focusing perhaps unwisely on what I feel is adequate intent and you are right to point out that this can only be defined by the letter of the law and is otherwise a matter for personal opinion. This was not a willful derailment of the discussion on my part, more an injection of my own view that people be treated respectfully and thoughtfully regardless of their background.

However, as you say, anecdotal experience and cultural norms do play a large part in the outcome of a visa application and therefore it is not wise to advise anyone to rely too heavily on the wording of the INA document when a large part of this process may rely on the subjective opinion of a consular officer as well as objective guidance from the law.

I do feel the importance of this community is to provide good information to those seeking it. Much of that advice is a combination of factual evidence and anecdotal experience.

Thanks for your input. I do feel you and others add a valuable clear-headed and non-personal approach to these types of discussions.

[Seattle2Cebu 0]

Ronald Reagan said trust and verify

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...

[no name 1]

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.

Not related to what is being discussed here but keep trying to stir the pot Charles.

Edited October 26, 2007 by devilette

[pushbrk 14,056]

Ronald Reagan said trust and verify

Yes, but he was talking about an enemy nation, not his wife Nancy. Context is important.

[no name 1]

Ronald Reagan said trust and verify

Yes, but he was talking about an enemy nation, not his wife Nancy. Context is important.

[John and Luda 0]

We've gone round and round about this, but the bottom line is those who choose to use the 90 days for a trial basis are going to have to blow smoke up the governments a** and fool them into thinking otherwise. To each his own, but that's a fact. Illegal? No. Deceptive? Yes. If the CO picks up on it, no visa issued. Plain and simple. Basically, I could care less how somebody does it but let's keep the facts straight once and for all.

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

Babblesgirl -

You have entered into a discussion that cannot be won. Perhaps more importantly, there is less intention by some individuals to make salient points than there is to continue an ongoing sociological examination of the perceived traits of certain 'types' of relationships.

I mentioned earlier it isn't our place as posters to define 'intent' categorically without interjecting our personal opinion. This thread is a perfect example of that very thing happening. What 'intent' is - in the eye of one petitioner and beneficiary - may not seem adequate to others. Insofar as immigration is considered, 'intent' can only be defined by the letter of the law - thus my reference to the INA. Case law will further influence any decisions made by a court.

On the other hand, cultural norms and anecdotal experience will influence decisions made by consular officers. It is this stage of the process that many of us seem to be discussing, as there have been many comments about saying thus-and-such or behaving a certain way at the interview.

Suffice it to say there are a number of posters on this site who are apparently fascinated by the relationships between petitioners and beneficiaries of certain nations. The validity of these relationships are often put under the microscope of these posters societal petri dishes for ad nauseum discussion. I believe that is not our intended purpose here. It creates a defensive atmosphere in the community. Unfortunately, that is the intent of some.

[Ban Hammer 14,661]

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.

Not related to what is being discussed here but keep trying to stir the pot Charles.

an excellent example of that which i bolded. keep up the bullying good work.

[Caladan 19]

Ronald Reagan said trust and verify

Yes, but he was talking about an enemy nation, not his wife Nancy. Context is important.

Awesome.

[rebeccajo 14]

We've gone round and round about this, but the bottom line is those who choose to use the 90 days for a trial basis are going to have to blow smoke up the governments a** and fool them into thinking otherwise. To each his own, but that's a fact. Illegal? No. Deceptive? Yes. If the CO picks up on it, no visa issued. Plain and simple. Basically, I could care less how somebody does it but let's keep the facts straight once and for all.

The facts are this - the petitioner and beneficiary must have met within the last two years; they must be free to marry; and they must have intent to marry.

It is up to petitioner and beneficiary to sufficiently demonstrate intent with the petition and at the interview. If such is not demonstrated, no visa will be issued.

What you or I define as 'intent' may not be the same as what someone else defines. It doesn't take 'smoke blowing' to show intent. UNLESS the relationship is being created or shammed (and possibly backed by payment to the petitioner) for the beneficiary to come live in the US fraudulently via a marriage that does not exist. THAT is the type of intent CO's are looking to quash.

[Sinergy 3]

honestly this thread should be closed, as all its going to do is continue to go DOWN

[Bob & Kim 0]

you got her number... some people like to pick fights to get attention I think

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.

The proof is in the pie...pumpkin that is

POST #9 HERE...

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=93368