Billious

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!

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 guess I find this to be insensitive. We all miss our significant others, and I don't think there's a single one of us who wouldn't snap our fingers in a second to bring them over if we could. I didn't get that the O.P. thought he was deserving of different, more prioritized service than anyone else. He's clearly someone who doesn't fully understand the system yet, and is here to get education and answers from a supportive community. Let's try to be that community.

At least here in California, you must have two separate lawyers involved in a pre-nup. One for the husband and one to represent the wife's interests. If the same lawyer tries to represent both, there is a huge conflict of interest and that isn't allowed or advisable. I am in the process of trying to find a second lawyer for my fiance, while he's still abroad, and that's a little difficult because he can't consult with them until he's here. But it is the way to go, absolutely!
I've never been married before and have NO plans on divorcing, but my fiance and I are in the process of drawing up a pre-nup -- we BOTH want it, it is in both of our best interests and it will protect both of us from any unforeseen future problems. I find it absolutely normal and I wish everyone would have one: it is something you create while you are in love, caring and looking out for each other's best interests, in order to protect EACH OTHER. I also think it's very common in the USA and not looked on as something bad at all.
I actually find it romantic. Maybe I'm weird. But I see it as: I care SO MUCH for my fiance and want him to be safe and happy and protected in case anything goes wrong. By feeling that now and drawing up an agreement for any future issues, I am promising to do well by him forever.
A prenup does not in any way mean that you do not trust or love each other. On the contrary, I treat it as an act of love and care. It's like taking out an insurance policy: does that mean you think you're going to be hospitalized? Of course not, but it's worth having in the chance of something going wrong.

I am sorry you are going through this. I can't really help you with the same experience. Perhaps if she moved there for an extended period of time to develop your relationship. Sounds to me like there isn't any trust on her end. Also, not sure how much I would trust a person like her, and I am American. She doesn't sound very stable.

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.

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.

Thanks for putting together the info it gave me something to read and had good information in it.
BTW Dont let the old timers get you down. It seems even in the visajourney site, there are trolls and jerks just like everywhere else..

From what I read -someone can correct my explanation- If you have K-1 Visa on hand, you've been granted come to US based to the purpose of the visa. My guess, the reason why you were denied before because you did not have much evidence to proved that you would going back to your country by that time. According to your story, you had bring many things, no return ticket, and then probably raised suspicious of security officer that you might be intend to stay.

Not sure why so many people are responding with "Get the K-1 filed". Maybe they're not at that stage yet. He did say "girlfriend".

The most likely reason for being denied entry is that she tried to enter either using the VWP or using a tourist visa, and she failed to prove non-immigrant intent. The fact that she had a US Citizen boyfriend would likely have been evidence that she intended to immigrate, and she would have had to counter that with enough ties to her home country to convince the officer that she didn't intend to immigrate.
If she was only refused entry for failure to prove non-immigrant intent, this will be a non-event as far as a future K-1, K-3, CR-1, or IR-1 visa is concerned. Yes, she'll have to disclose it on all the forms where it asks if she's ever been refused entry, but the interviewer will ask her a question about it, get the details of the reason, and it won't be a problem. Plenty of people here have had success after being refused entry for failure to prove non-immigrant intent.
If the reason was something else, or if she made the situation worse by being uncooperative and/or lying to or misleading an officer, things could be much worse. From the limited information you've given, we can't rule out the possibility she got a lifetime ban for lying to an officer. So I agree with the earlier posters that what's vital is that she know why she was refused entry.
Have her send copies of all the papers and/or passport markings to her USC boyfriend. Have her USC boyfriend schedule a one hour consultation with an immigration attorney, bring the copies of the paperwork, and make sure she is available near a phone during the conference. That'll quickly sort out what happened and what future effect it might have.

I guess I find this to be insensitive. We all miss our significant others, and I don't think there's a single one of us who wouldn't snap our fingers in a second to bring them over if we could. I didn't get that the O.P. thought he was deserving of different, more prioritized service than anyone else. He's clearly someone who doesn't fully understand the system yet, and is here to get education and answers from a supportive community. Let's try to be that community.

Sorry to hear that. I hope things will work well for you. Maybe your lawyer will help you and things will work well. Things happen for a reason, just trust yourself. My heart goes for you

Please dont no one jump on me, just an innocent question, why is so many men going there to find wives and not the other way around
I happen to see that here alot and wonder....just curious.The way OP puts it as if now he has to go back there as he wont find anyone elsewhere.

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:
and the response 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.

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.

Yep, go back home.
Why do people insist on staying here, after their relationships turn to ####??? If you moved for a person, and that relationship failed, go back home. Why the constant need for advice on what can one do to stay? It almost seems like the green card was the real goal rather than the person...

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.

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:
and the response 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.

I guess I find this to be insensitive. We all miss our significant others, and I don't think there's a single one of us who wouldn't snap our fingers in a second to bring them over if we could. I didn't get that the O.P. thought he was deserving of different, more prioritized service than anyone else. He's clearly someone who doesn't fully understand the system yet, and is here to get education and answers from a supportive community. Let's try to be that community.

I guess I find this to be insensitive. We all miss our significant others, and I don't think there's a single one of us who wouldn't snap our fingers in a second to bring them over if we could. I didn't get that the O.P. thought he was deserving of different, more prioritized service than anyone else. He's clearly someone who doesn't fully understand the system yet, and is here to get education and answers from a supportive community. Let's try to be that community.

I guess I find this to be insensitive. We all miss our significant others, and I don't think there's a single one of us who wouldn't snap our fingers in a second to bring them over if we could. I didn't get that the O.P. thought he was deserving of different, more prioritized service than anyone else. He's clearly someone who doesn't fully understand the system yet, and is here to get education and answers from a supportive community. Let's try to be that community.

I guess I find this to be insensitive. We all miss our significant others, and I don't think there's a single one of us who wouldn't snap our fingers in a second to bring them over if we could. I didn't get that the O.P. thought he was deserving of different, more prioritized service than anyone else. He's clearly someone who doesn't fully understand the system yet, and is here to get education and answers from a supportive community. Let's try to be that community.