john_and_marlene

Now arranged marriages are illegal?????
I think you are twisting the actual wording to fit this situation. By your standard, anyone who has immigration as any part of their marriage decision is illegal.
Say, for instance, someone is on the fence about committing to marriage and is weighing the pros and cons. They are in love and want to start a family, but are not sure they are ready to move away from their country. On the other hand, the opportunities in the US would make it possible to help their family. They finally decide to accept the proposal and immigrate to the US. One of the considerations in their decision was the opportunity they would have because of the immigration, but it was not the only consideration. They would not be marrying to circumvent the immigration process. Are you saying this would be illegal?

I disagree with your interpretation. If the marriage was a sham only for immigration, I would agree. This woman is looking for a real marriage to someone who can expand her opportunities. If the marriage is real and entered into for the creation of a family in addition to other considerations such as the ability to immigrate, immigration based on that marriage is not illegal.

Love is not the only basis for a successful or committed marriage. I don't see this as illegal. Rather it's a contract marriage. She gets more opportunities and he gets a wife. It would only be illegal if there was a plan to end the marriage once the green card was obtained or if they didn't live as husband and wife. It appears that you have labeled it illegal because it does not fit into your perception of a legitimate marriage.

I disagree with your interpretation. If the marriage was a sham only for immigration, I would agree. This woman is looking for a real marriage to someone who can expand her opportunities. If the marriage is real and entered into for the creation of a family in addition to other considerations such as the ability to immigrate, immigration based on that marriage is not illegal.

Now arranged marriages are illegal?????
I think you are twisting the actual wording to fit this situation. By your standard, anyone who has immigration as any part of their marriage decision is illegal.
Say, for instance, someone is on the fence about committing to marriage and is weighing the pros and cons. They are in love and want to start a family, but are not sure they are ready to move away from their country. On the other hand, the opportunities in the US would make it possible to help their family. They finally decide to accept the proposal and immigrate to the US. One of the considerations in their decision was the opportunity they would have because of the immigration, but it was not the only consideration. They would not be marrying to circumvent the immigration process. Are you saying this would be illegal?

I am exactly on topic. If the only fruit of this marriage were the immigration benefit, then it would be illegal, but that is not explicitly stated. If the intent is for this marriage to be a life-long and committed marriage, then it is indeed a bonafide marriage and does not meet the measure of being solely for immigration benefit. I would like to see any cite that expressly prohibits contract marriages.
Since the topic appears to be why the original post was removed and you claim that it violated the TOS because it was illegal activity--then my posts are absolutely on topic disagreeing with your assertion. If you deem them to be off topic because you don't like them, that doesn't make it true.

Love is not the only basis for a successful or committed marriage. I don't see this as illegal. Rather it's a contract marriage. She gets more opportunities and he gets a wife. It would only be illegal if there was a plan to end the marriage once the green card was obtained or if they didn't live as husband and wife. It appears that you have labeled it illegal because it does not fit into your perception of a legitimate marriage.

A time-limited fraud unit decision would need to conservatively err on the side of denying a visa. The unit is attempting to overcome a presupposition of denial. If the time expires without overcoming their burden then a denial is the only choice. It's best to give them whatever time is required.

www.drphil.com

You won't incur a ban until you have been out of status for 180 days. If you left 2 weeks after the I-94 expired, you did not incur a ban.

You won't incur a ban until you have been out of status for 180 days. If you left 2 weeks after the I-94 expired, you did not incur a ban.

Not true! The K-3 is a 2-year Multiple entry visa.

Not true! The K-3 is a 2-year Multiple entry visa.

Absolutely False --- -1

How is this fraud? You said they have divorced and he is currently free to marry. If he petitions for this new woman and plans to marry her and live with her as his wife, I don't see the fraud. Because they will have the ex-wife living with them and part of the relationship does not make the new petition fraudulent. While the situation may be morally questionable, it doesn't constitute fraud.

Absolutely False --- -1

Absolutely False --- -1

I think you should throw caution to the wind and honeymoon whereever you desire--after all, it's a once-in-a-lifetime event. Worry about all the bothersome bureaucratic nonsense afterwards. If you have trouble at a POE later--no problem, you didn't want to enter anyway.

I think you should throw caution to the wind and honeymoon whereever you desire--after all, it's a once-in-a-lifetime event. Worry about all the bothersome bureaucratic nonsense afterwards. If you have trouble at a POE later--no problem, you didn't want to enter anyway.

I think you should throw caution to the wind and honeymoon whereever you desire--after all, it's a once-in-a-lifetime event. Worry about all the bothersome bureaucratic nonsense afterwards. If you have trouble at a POE later--no problem, you didn't want to enter anyway.

Not true. If a determination is made that material misrepresentation was made for any past immigration benefit, that benefit and all subsequent benefits can be revoked. If, during naturalization, they determine that a material misrepresentation was made on the original entry visa, the permanent residence can be revoked and deportation proceedings started.

She's definitely not in the 3 year ban category. She had 90 days of valid stay. Overstay did not begin to accumulate until 90 days after entry.

There needs to be some way of indicating that a post is giving bad information. It happens every day and unless there is some discouragement, bad advice and/or misinformation will be propogated.

Get rid of the post count, all the hearts, and all the history, then it just might work!

An occassional post while viewing new content messages is a far cry from regularly visiting a forum. Once again you have missed the forest for the trees ... -1