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

[Caladan 19]

And, also.... look, people going through consulates like Manila always whine about how mean the CO's are, why they want so much evidence, yada, yada... anyone ever stop to think that one reason they're so picky might be the number of people who haven't bothered to get to know their fiancee before filing? It's a bit much to be saying on the one hand 'we need the 90 days to get to know each other' and on the other 'how dare they question whether we know each other well enough!'

[Cassie 8]

Sorry, I'm in the "K-1 visa is for fiances, not people who think they are going to get married and need the 90 days to make sure" camp.

In my humble opinion, when you give/accept the marriage proposal, you have already figured out that yes, you do want to get married, and yes, you understand what that means, and yes, you understand that it's gonna be rough settling in, and yes, you have taken the time to already get to know one another, in person and not. Jerry proposed to me once, and I told him "not yet", because I hadn't met his family yet, I didn't know what Tulsa was like, or what his life was truly like in the US. So I made a point to visit, check things out and think about whether or not I thought I could live here in the US. Once I was at peace with that particular answer, and a few other things, I was ready to accept his proposal and all that meant.

Now I know people are going to pipe up and say "well that's easy for you to say, you're from a country where it's easy to travel to the US -- no tourist visas, no travel restrictions, etc etc". You're right, I was blessed in that respect. But I don't want that point to overshadow my overall message. In reality, Jerry and I spent a total of 26 days together in person, the rest of the time we spoke incessantly. Not just about the minutiae of daily life, which is important, but purposefully asking each other questions and talking about things we knew would come up once we married and moved in together. We made sure we were on the same page in matters of faith, fiances, goals & dreams, family, etc etc. so we knew what we were getting into before this whole thing went down. I'm not saying the first couple of months were a piece of cake, but the work we put into it beforehand certainly made things easier in the long run. We got married on day 7 of the 90 day period, in a modest (20 people wedding, 80 people reception) religious ceremony with all the trimmings, and on Nov 7th we will be celebrating our 3rd anniversary.

[tmma 467]

Unfortunately any real discussion in this thread is going to be stifled by the fact that there are a couple people here who are so fundamentalist in their belief that there is only one way to do it, and if you don't do it their way you are a selfish greedy ####### who uses women like kleenex. They refuse to see beyond their own experiences.

There are as many ways to enter a relationship as their are people. If two consenting adults want to "see if it's going to work out," then who the hell are we to question that? As long as they did it legally, what's the problem? Frankly I could give a ####### what the government's "intent" is with regards to the K-1 visa. The government have shown their ineptitude and poor judgment at every step of the way when it comes to immigration, so pardon me if I don't feel like their opinion about what the 90 days should be used for is worth the paper it's written on. Signing a letter of intent, with the intention of seeing if it's going to work out, is not visa fraud. Maybe it is in the strictest most puritan sense, but certainly not in a moral sense.

We are all adults. We enter into relationships as adults, and hopefully we are both honest and upfront with each other. If one or both of the partners is being dishonest, then you have bigger problems than worrying about how to use the 90 days.

I suggest you and your fiancee say the bolded [ and especially the underlined parts] parts at the interview. I am sure the CO will understand .

Bending the official, lawful intent of the K-1 90 days to suit individual circumstances does not make it right; wether YOU happen to think the rules are reasonable or not......

Edited October 25, 2007 by tmma

[pushbrk 14,055]

Unfortunately any real discussion in this thread is going to be stifled by the fact that there are a couple people here who are so fundamentalist in their belief that there is only one way to do it, and if you don't do it their way you are a selfish greedy ####### who uses women like kleenex. They refuse to see beyond their own experiences.

There are as many ways to enter a relationship as their are people. If two consenting adults want to "see if it's going to work out," then who the hell are we to question that? As long as they did it legally, what's the problem? Frankly I could give a ####### what the government's "intent" is with regards to the K-1 visa. The government have shown their ineptitude and poor judgment at every step of the way when it comes to immigration, so pardon me if I don't feel like their opinion about what the 90 days should be used for is worth the paper it's written on. Signing a letter of intent, with the intention of seeing if it's going to work out, is not visa fraud. Maybe it is in the strictest most puritan sense, but certainly not in a moral sense.

We are all adults. We enter into relationships as adults, and hopefully we are both honest and upfront with each other. If one or both of the partners is being dishonest, then you have bigger problems than worrying about how to use the 90 days.

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.

[Ban Hammer 14,648]

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!

Oh, I forgot to add: I'm not your babe, steve55.

game, set, and match.

[ramos96 1]

I'm a Tauren

Ahko - Thrall

im a troll

going through Manila Philippines Cebu is in the Visayas

Ah, you changed it. Okay. I'm not really up on what's happening in PI these days, but I think my argument still holds: she is not leaving her family and friends for America, she's leaving for you. If you take the attitude that you are "rescuing" her from poverty and a miserable life, you are bound to be disappointed.

[undeadmike 0]

Unfortunately any real discussion in this thread is going to be stifled by the fact that there are a couple people here who are so fundamentalist in their belief that there is only one way to do it, and if you don't do it their way you are a selfish greedy ####### who uses women like kleenex. They refuse to see beyond their own experiences.

Actually, the OP was about how you as the petitioner should make sure that your fiance isn't betraying you just to get into the US. And specifically told you what kind of actions would be "okay" to make sure. That was "the best way to use your 90 days prior to marriage on a K1" according to the OP.

Sorry, but any bending of rules and morals and "maybe you could do this" and "the visa might also be used for that" is just simply not what the K1 is intended for. Wether people like that or not.

If you choose to betray your fiance by (secretly) "not intending to marry her/him" within those 90 days but rather "intend to find out if you want to" is your choice. But no past experience or no argument makes that right or the intend of the K1. Especially if you use means that are morally and legally questionable, like the ones the OP suggests (Keylogging, spying on email, etc).

If two people agree on using the 90 days to find out it might make it morally right as nobody is betraying each other but one person deciding the actions suggested in the OP by her/himself is treacherous.

undeadmike

[freecake 0]

I'm going to have to agree with moxcamel....:

"Unfortunately any real discussion in this thread is going to be stifled by the fact that there are a couple people here who are so fundamentalist in their belief that there is only one way to do it, ...."

Consider for a moment that we're a very, very diverse group of people here. Some people have lived together a long time and this visa is just a formality. Less fortunate of us have been able to visit and maintain a relationship long distance. Even less fortunate have met once but it is in the cards for marriage. None of us can know what will go down in that 90 days.

Now personally I'm certain that my relationship will become a marriage. I applied for the visa with the intention that this was my fiance and nothing is going to move that. but none of us know 100% for certain that nothing will happen in that time between arrival and marriage. none of us know that once married, everything will be happy and skippy and perfect or disasterous.

i think that there's some very small-mind thinking going on about one way being right or wrong. this conversation has become very 'black and white.'

do i personally think that the K1 is for people intending already to get married? YES. that is what USCIS has designed it for. Do i think that any one of us could get our fiance here and have a falling out before marriage.

yes, i certainly do.

as negative as it seems.

[John and Luda 0]

No matter what the reasons are the petioner has to deceive the government into thinking there is a real intent to marry. In other words, put on a big song and dance about how much in love the two of you are in, wedding plans, etc. just to get he/she into the country. If the government new the truth your visa would be denied. It's that simple.

[AmericanGentleman 0]

I have not followed this thread word for word, but one thing I have not seen mention is the fact that once the fiance is here and your 90 days have begun, teh petitioner has already signed and noterized an AOS which clearly states that you are finacially responsible for that person during their stay and for up to 3 years.

Now, in the case you do not marry, the fiance can take it up in immigration court. The fiance can present a case that she came here in good faith but her petitioner renigged on the agreement and she has nothing to go back to nor any means to.

I would be willing to wager that the court would require the petitioner to pay her bills for the next 3 years while she gets established here.

Now if the OP wants to wait until she is here before deciding to marry or not, .....well...that is a poor finacial decision at best.

Edited October 25, 2007 by AmericanGentleman

[rebeccajo 14]

The K1 requires a couple to have met in the last two years, and state they have intent to marry.

If the marriage never takes place, and the beneficiary returns to their home country before the 90 days is up, no law is broken.

Look in up in the INA. Not on USCIS.gov.

[John and Luda 0]

I have not followed this thread word for word, but one thing I have not seen mention is the fact that once the fiance is here and your 90 days have begun, teh petitioner has already signed and noterized an AOS which clearly states that you are finacially responsible for that person during their stay and for up to 3 years.

Now, in the case you do not marry, the fiance can take it up in immigration court. The fiance can present a case that she came here in good faith but her petitioner renigged on the agreement and she has nothing to go back to nor any means to.

I would be willing to wager that the court would require the petitioner to pay her bills for the next 3 years while she gets established here.

Now if the OP wants to wait until she is here before deciding to marry or not, .....well...that is a poor finacial decision at best.

Good point. The alien fiance' will also know about those rights before coming. That's why Congress passed IMBRA.

[Ladylethal 12]

Folks, this is VERY clear, the 90 day period is not that long so the couple can know each other, is so the couple have enough time to plan their wedding, settle into the new house, some places have different requisites for a wedding license (here we had to have blood work and all that) and some courtrooms are so busy it may take 30-40 days to get an open date for the judge to marry you, THAT's what the 90 days are for.

If you don't know your fiance/e well enough that you need the 90 day period to do so, then you shouldn't have petitioned AT ALL.

[John and Luda 0]

The K1 requires a couple to have met in the last two years, and state they have intent to marry.

If the marriage never takes place, and the beneficiary returns to their home country before the 90 days is up, no law is broken.

Look in up in the INA. Not on USCIS.gov.

I don't think anybody said there was a law to be broken based on the circumstance you described. The point goes back to the OP who wants to use the 90 days for a trial basis. This means the OP petitioner has to decieve the U.S. goverment to think otherwise. Again, if they knew there wasn't sincerity in the petition it would be denied. Otherwise, why have the rule at all if it's meaningless.

[HannahP 119]

Unlike, I think, the vast majority of people on this forum, I had the good fortune to be able to live with my husband for two years before we were married. Our honeymoon phase easily out-lasted those first ninety days.

Yet even having known each other for years before we first moved in together - visiting every few weeks, chatting online every day - we had so much to learn about each other. We were still learning after ninety days; we're still learning after 2.5 years of 'round the clock face-to-face time. The learning and the growing never stops. So the whole argument seems moot because any relationship/marriage is going to be a continuous, fluid process.