Billious

You do know that VJ has plenty of guides, right? Why make your own guide when you are too "lazy" to make it right. Seems odd. Oh well, I am out.

Comments like this are disheartening. I love that someone is using their time and energy to try to compile information into one concise place, in the hopes it will make life easier for someone else. I remember when I first found VJ, and it was so... vast. This topic is inherently broad, with so many nuances. What the OP is trying to do here is give a simplified breakdown of the most common scenarios, and if I had seen something like this when I first started researching, it would have saved me from asking a lot of stupid questions and would have allowed me to search for information more effectively.

We are here to help each other, each in our own way. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Split hairs all you want about "it's OK in this country, but not that country," but realize that this is purely theoretical when it comes to the nuts and bolts of convincing a CO to grant a visa. Just try playing it your way and arguing your point in front of an accusatory CO who has 100% power to continue or wreck your relationship plans. Even worse, just imagine trying to explain your reasoning to a couple who accepts your advice and gets royally hosed at the consulate.

For the record, Ceilla received her approval with full disclosure on this topic. I stand by the notion that if anyone is considering doing this, simply contact the embassy in question beforehand and get their approval. No reason for stress or keeping secrets. If you make your inquiry by email, print the response and take it with you when you have your interview.

I think you are making a wise choice.

Dave

For the record, I would say that in India, you are making a wise choice as well. Making a personal marital commitment there creates a legal commitment as well, which creates an ineligibility for a K1 visa there. Good luck!

I would never encourage you to lie or "get away" with something. The simplest thing you can do is simply ask the embassy - if Egypt has a distinct legal process for becoming married that isn't automatically invoked by having a ceremony, you're not getting away with anything. You're having a family celebration while maintaining the legal capability to be married upon reuniting in the US. Simply ask the embassy. Get it in writing.

And taking advice from someone who has yet to have their K-1 interview and successfully enter the country is wise?

Folks like TBone have been on VJ for some time and have seen plenty of instances of people shooting themselves in the proverbial foot as they attempt to game the system. What works for even 10 people on VJ is not indicative of what may work for the 11th person who tries it.

An ad hominem attack on me doesn't invalidate the point. The standard USCIS and DOS use to determine eligibility is whether the couple is free to marry in the petitioner's state. And having done quite a bit of research on these forums, I've seen more people say they DIDN'T have a problem with this than those who DID. And nearly universally, the ones that DID have a problem were in India or West Africa. And in those countries, the couple ran afoul of the LEGAL requirement to be free to wed - because the ceremonies they engaged in carried an unintentional legal consequence.

And you know what? I agree with the "safer rather than sorry" mentality. But what I'm fighting against here is the idea that there's superstitious voodoo causing denials on a whim. In the vast majority of cases, it's not C.O, malevolence creating denials - it's inadvertent violations of the rules. I feel this community is more helpful if people are guided by *facts* and a clear knowledge of the requirements of the process, and not instilling an unneeded fear of the boogie-man.

Nothing in anything I write is meant to be of any offense or belittle anyone - but if my interpretation of things doesn't jive with yours, perhaps you might step off the ad hominem attack and instead address the facts I lay down? I think the DOS web site, USCIS web site, an interview with a USCIS executive and an email from an embassy C.O. create a powerful case for my point.

With respect.

Split hairs all you want about "it's OK in this country, but not that country," but realize that this is purely theoretical when it comes to the nuts and bolts of convincing a CO to grant a visa. Just try playing it your way and arguing your point in front of an accusatory CO who has 100% power to continue or wreck your relationship plans. Even worse, just imagine trying to explain your reasoning to a couple who accepts your advice and gets royally hosed at the consulate.

Given your tagline "Among the 99.44% HOSED at the Guayaquil consulate", I'm going to assume that you've had a difficult and contentious experience during the embassy phase of your process. And for that, I'm sorry... it sounds like you had a really rough consulate to deal with.

But from what I gather through these forums, the vast majority of the consulates apply a fairly consistent set of analysis to K1 visas. Regarding the requirement to be "free to marry upon arrival in the US", the only countries where non-legal ceremonies seem to create issues are certain West African countries, as well as India - places where the local legal tradition creates a LEGAL bond by the personal establishment an oath.

To further back up that this is a matter of legalistic status, and not simple consulate wonkery, are words for the very organizations involved.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_2994.html

Under U.S. immigration law, a foreign-citizen fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen is the recipient of an approved Petition for Alien Fiancé(e), Form I-129F, who has been issued a nonimmigrant K-1 visa for travel to the United States in order to marry his or her U.S. citizen fiancé(e). Both the U.S. citizen and the K-1 visa applicant must have been legally free to marry at the time the petition was filed and must have remained so thereafter. The marriage must be legally possible according to laws of the U.S. state in which the marriage will take place.

Email to the Jakarta embassy:

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:32 AM

To: Jakarta, IV

Subject: K1 Visa in Progress

Hello,

My Indonesian fiancee and I are in the process of getting our I-129f approved through USCIS, and anticipate it will be coming through to the Jakarta embassy eventually. We are considering having a family celebration in Indonesia before she comes over here. With no religious figures, no paperwork, nothing that would create any legal marriage between the two of us - simply an opportunity for the family to celebrate since they will be unable to attend our wedding when she comes to the US.

I've read online that some people have had problems with Consular Officers denying K1 visas because of these celebrations. I want to be sure we don't run afoul of State Department rules. Can you clarify, will the Jakarta embassy issue a K1 visa if we have a family celebration that does not result in any government/religious organization recognizing a marriage?

Thank you for your time

Dear Mr. XXX,

Thank you for your email.

You can have a family celebration here in Indonesia. Do not register this ceremony to the KUA or Civil registry Office. If you do so, your fiancé will not eligible for a K-1 visa status.

Regards,

IMMIGRANT VISA UNIT

Somewhere in the depths of VJ was a post or an interview from a USCIS official who outright said that K1 applicants are free to have a non-legal ceremony without impacting the validity of their status. But alas at 6am, I'm having a hell of a time finding that old post.

There's been a lot of insensitive talk on this board about these non-legal ceremonies - people calling them "pretend weddings", etc. They are not. To those who choose to do this, it *is* their wedding day - and seeing these posts calling them "fake marriages", etc. is really insulting. Marriage is a dual institution, and for the purposes of immigration, the legal side is all the matters. But to discount the personal/emotional/spiritual side of the institution by calling people's weddings "fake" is unnecessary.

The reason this topic comes up a LOT is because one of the failings of the K1 process is that it does not offer much in the way of flexibility for managing the family expectations of international couples. The requirement to be free to marry is fully a matter of legality - the State Department/USCIS's goal in enforcing that requirement is to ensure that an immigrant will have the legal wherewithal to adjust status on arrival. As to the emotional/religious status of the couple, other than ensuring a bona fide relationship, the US government has no interest whatsoever in what the couple may refer to each other as.

There is so much bad advice being given in this thread, but they are stumbling on the right answer in the end for your situation...

The criteria is simply if you are legally free to wed. In most countries, you absolutely CAN have a ceremony together so long as it's not registered with the government. Whoever said "if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck" is full of it. In our case (Indonesia), we specifically asked the embassy about this, and they said they don't care so long as it's not legally registered. That's NOT lying, that's NOT visa fraud... that's having a family celebration without legally being unable to wed upon arriving.

The tricky part is that India doesn't separate legal and "personal' marriages. By making a vow to each other in India, the government considers you married - regardless of "filing" anything. By being in a government recognized state of marriage, you cease to be eligible for a K1 visa.

So in your instance, this is a bad idea. But the advise people give on this forum in a general sense (ie: not India or certain African countries) is horribly inaccurate and leads to a lack of understanding for what the Embassies are looking for.

Ok let me help, because there's a lot of unhelpful "advice" being thrown around here.

I live in Wisconsin, and have some legal training. If you were issued a municipal citation (like you said) from the City of Greenfield, then you are dealing with an ordinance violation - not a crime. The same case probably COULD have been charged criminally through the District Attorney's office, but as the police officer chose to write it as an ordinance violation, you are in the clear.

To summarize, if you are ever asked if you have been charged with a crime, you can honestly say no. Ordinance violations in Wisconsin are basically the same thing as traffic violations. You broke the law, but are not being charged criminally.

But, here's the million dollar question - and probably why you caught so much flack here - why were you stealing? Or was it a misunderstanding? If you were stealing, you were doing a huge disservice to other immigrants who intend to be good citizens here.

Ceilla and I did something very similar... I emailed the embassy in Jakarta and asked them if it would be a problem - they assured me that so long as it wasn't registered, no problem.

I've seen this topic come up so many times, and seen so much bad advice. When in doubt, ask the people who will make the decision!

Maybe I should have chose my words a little more carefully. Basically, have a ceremony in the Philippines where all of her friends and family can attend but have it not be legal in the eyes of the government.

Simplest way to find out is to ask. My fiance and I did the same thing in Indonesia... I emailed the consulate and asked them, and their response:

"Thank you for your email.

You can have a family celebration here in Indonesia. Do not register this ceremony to the KUA or Civil registry Office. If you do so, your fiancé will not eligible for a K-1 visa status. "

The analysis that determines whether your K1 eligibility is affected is simple - is there any government on Earth that considers you married? If so, you are not eligible for a K1 visa. Some people going through the consulates in India and some African countries have had problems, because in those countries the simple declaration of two people proclaiming themselves to be married is enough to create a legal status of matrimony, thusly invalidating a K1.

If you want peace of mind, simply email the embassy in Manilla and ask!

To add a little bit to what my beautiful and beloved Ceilla has written above...

We've passed NOA2, and the NVC says our application is at the embassy in Jakarta. Checking the State Department's status check website, it says we're "ready". The Jakarta embassy (to our knowledge) will email me with "packet 3", which will include the forms we need for Ceilla to take her medical exam. They haven't emailed us yet, even when we've requested it from them. The authorized doctors will not provide her an examination without us bringing the forms to them. We were hoping to get the exam out of the way, since we have everything else prepared for the interview.

Does anyone here have experience with getting your medical exam in Jakarta before received the Packet 3 email? Thanks!

Get a job and stop soliciting people here. This is against the rules. You have to be absolutely crazy to stick your neck out for someone you don't even know. Immigration is a priviledge.

Even though you are correct, can you try to have a little compassion here? I'm sure we can all find more diplomatic ways to send a message...

Today I called the NVC and found out our I-129f package got forwarded to Jakarta on May 8th, which is awesome news! I asked her if she could tell me when it was expected to arrive, and she told me that application materials are all sent electronically now, so the embassy already has it. Is this common to all embassies? I've read a little bit about electronic visa processing in Montreal and China, but these were for I-130 filings where the NVC seems to be a little more involved. Will the physical package also be sent?

The Jakarta embassy has not yet sent out Packet 3 for what it's worth...

This has been answered elsewhere, but the rough idea is this... yes, you'd have to cancel your current petition and start a new one. You would lose your filing fee, have to pay the filing fee for a new petition, and you'd start the waiting over again. But if those things are all worth the new wedding plans, there you go. Piece of cake!

So while this may really only be relevant to filers dealing with Jakarta, but I did receive an email back from the Consulate there:

"Thank you for your email.

You can have a family celebration here in Indonesia. Do not register this ceremony to the KUA or Civil registry Office. If you do so, your fiancé will not eligible for a K-1 visa status.

Regards,
IMMIGRANT VISA UNIT
Embassy of the United States of America I Jalan Medan Merdeka Selatan #5 I Jakarta 10110 I Indonesia
Email: JakIV@state.gov I Fax +62 (21) 385-7189 I internet: http://jakarta.usembassy.gov"

I don't have any answers for you, other than to say I'm sorry! That is really unfortunate...

Also, I checked all those threads that were referenced earlier in this conversation, and it seems almost all of them were from India. Does anyone know of consulates in any other countries who've offered these denials? For what it's worth, I just emailed the Jakarta embassy my "what-if" scenario, and when I get an answer, I'll update this thread.

My dearest Ceilla and I have been luckier than many - we worked together over the winter on a cruise ship, and then I was in Indonesia with her for a month. So we've actually only been apart for a few weeks. But we had 7 months apart last Summer, and we are so excited! We got the NOA2 notice at about 6pm California time, for what it's worth!

But Ceilla (my dear fiancé) posted above about our experience. We were on a cruise ship, and instead of a priest we had the port shopping ambassador perform a commitment ceremony. We were in international waters and signed nothing. Do you really think USCIS is going to get confused about that?

It's in the instructions for the I-129F petition...see page 2, section 5. The K-1 is for unmarried couples. By getting married, one is no longer eligible for the K-1 visa. It's one of the reasons you have to submit a letter of intent stating you're free to marry.

OK this is the meat and potatoes of the issue, and what I think people are getting confused about.

In a post from someone who was previous an adjudicator, he made it very clear that USCIS makes a distinction between a legal marriage and a civil ceremony. He stated - in no uncertain terms - that a non-legal wedding is OK, and can be a great solution for people who wish to have a family celebration back in the alien fiance's country.

This really isn't complicated. If there is any government - anywhere - that recognizes the petitioner and beneficiary as married, you're not eligible for a K1 visa. If two people walk into the woods with a friend and have a quick ceremony and call themselves married, that's between the two of them - no government involved at all, and no problem.

Now, there is the variable that a given consular official could get a wild hair up his butt and use his discretion to deny, which is why it's best to keep any civil ceremonies on the down-low. But so long as you haven't signed any piece of paperwork, or registered with any government as a spouse, there is absolutely no reason you can't have a celebration of your love beforehand.

I think people are starting to get a little spoiled by CSC playing catch up. I'd love to see them keep this up until they had no K-1 petitions left to approve, but let's all be a little more realistic. Once they get caught up, which at the current pace, is likely to be fairly soon (next few weeks), be ready for a slow down from CSC. They hopefully don't ever come to a halt again like they did at the end of last year, but be ready to go back to only seeing a few per day, and some days without any. That is more along the lines of reality.

I nominate this for post of the year. Let's hope the CSC achieves BALANCE!

A Senator is a "congress person", or member of Congress.

Thanks, if you didn't say it, I was going to

To clarify for anyone else out there... Congress has two branches: The Senate and The House of Representatives. Everyone has 2 Senators and 1 Representative (except people in Territories like Puerto Rico/USVI/Guam).

People usually go to their Senators because it's perceived that Senators have more influence. As a rule, this is generally true. But if your Representative has been in office for a long time, or happens to be on an Immigration sub-committee, they may be more useful. Or it could simply come down to "who's office has the most ambitious/sympathetic case worker?"

Hope this helps!

This is great news You'll have an answer soon!

Senator Baldwin's caseworker got a huge puff of smoke blown up their you know what, IMHO.

Regarding excuses for K1's not having been processed, absolutely. About water damage? Who knows. But I believe they have hired a whole mess of new adjudicators, and I think it's reasonable that they've opened the door for all Congressional requests for those within a range of their processing time. It makes sense. If they're getting flooded with Congressional requests, it makes it nice and clean to say "we'll pull the files of anyone who's within 3 weeks of our processing target".

USCIS is a piece of work though, my goodness...