ChicagoSarah

They want to know what website you used. If the site is an IMB (International Marriage Broker), then you have to prove that there was consent given through that site. If you met on Facebook, Instagram, or something well-known as a social networking site, then just mention the site and when you started corresponding. If the site you met on is less well known, see if you can find something that states that the site is not an IMB and send that back as well with the RFE.
And as a K-1, one of the requirements is to have met in person in the last 2 years, so I'd hope and assume you have done so (there are incredibly rare exceptions to this rule when extreme hardship for the USC can be proven).

Write: "my fiancé and I met on a social networking app called Skout (ENTER DATE HERE) and met in person after 6 months of constant skyping and chatting (ENTER DATE AND WHERE YOU MET HERE)"
I think this question is basically trying to determine if you met through an IMB

Write: "my fiancé and I met on a social networking app called Skout (ENTER DATE HERE) and met in person after 6 months of constant skyping and chatting (ENTER DATE AND WHERE YOU MET HERE)"
I think this question is basically trying to determine if you met through an IMB

I think you're doing the right thing! I did exactly the same thing while waiting for my fiance to get his visa. Our save the dates/invites all said "*visa permitting" on the bottom, and we waited to have his family finalize travel arrangements until we were pretty certain of the issuance (we did it when an interview was set...which I know is also warned against).
As long as you're signing contracts with movable dates (which is what I did), then you're fine! Enjoy the planning, just don't make any plans/deposits that you can't change if things don't follow the timeline you think they will.
There is obviously no saying if your date is far enough out or not, especially with the TSC petitions being routed to CSC now to lessen the workload of TSC. Those centers change processing times so frequently that all you can do is take a safe guess and hope for the best (with refundable plans).
Good luck with everything!

People have gotten denied for a K-1 because they had a party that might have been a wedding. Or an engagement session that looked too much like a wedding. The 2 requirements for the K-1 are that you have met in the last 2 years and that you are both legally free to marry.
Did the person who got through file the I-130 and I-129 concurrently? This has been done and is perfectly legal...so long as they are representing themselves as married.
Choosing to continue on this path isn't just a bad idea that might not pan out. It's illegal. Misrepresentation to the US government isn't taken lightly, and pursuing a K-1 as a non-married couple when that is not the case is quite the misrepresentation. Application has to be cancelled and the appropriate CR-1 paperwork must be filed (and the clock will start back at 0).
Nigeria is known for being a difficult embassy to get through as it is. I'm certain this would be something they check for before issuing the visa.

Forms/process-wise, neither was overly difficult.
I'd say AOS is easier. You're together, you've married your partner, and you're settling in together. It's always easier doing it together than thousands of miles apart.

Forms/process-wise, neither was overly difficult.
I'd say AOS is easier. You're together, you've married your partner, and you're settling in together. It's always easier doing it together than thousands of miles apart.

People have gotten denied for a K-1 because they had a party that might have been a wedding. Or an engagement session that looked too much like a wedding. The 2 requirements for the K-1 are that you have met in the last 2 years and that you are both legally free to marry.
Did the person who got through file the I-130 and I-129 concurrently? This has been done and is perfectly legal...so long as they are representing themselves as married.
Choosing to continue on this path isn't just a bad idea that might not pan out. It's illegal. Misrepresentation to the US government isn't taken lightly, and pursuing a K-1 as a non-married couple when that is not the case is quite the misrepresentation. Application has to be cancelled and the appropriate CR-1 paperwork must be filed (and the clock will start back at 0).
Nigeria is known for being a difficult embassy to get through as it is. I'm certain this would be something they check for before issuing the visa.

People have gotten denied for a K-1 because they had a party that might have been a wedding. Or an engagement session that looked too much like a wedding. The 2 requirements for the K-1 are that you have met in the last 2 years and that you are both legally free to marry.
Did the person who got through file the I-130 and I-129 concurrently? This has been done and is perfectly legal...so long as they are representing themselves as married.
Choosing to continue on this path isn't just a bad idea that might not pan out. It's illegal. Misrepresentation to the US government isn't taken lightly, and pursuing a K-1 as a non-married couple when that is not the case is quite the misrepresentation. Application has to be cancelled and the appropriate CR-1 paperwork must be filed (and the clock will start back at 0).
Nigeria is known for being a difficult embassy to get through as it is. I'm certain this would be something they check for before issuing the visa.

People have gotten denied for a K-1 because they had a party that might have been a wedding. Or an engagement session that looked too much like a wedding. The 2 requirements for the K-1 are that you have met in the last 2 years and that you are both legally free to marry.
Did the person who got through file the I-130 and I-129 concurrently? This has been done and is perfectly legal...so long as they are representing themselves as married.
Choosing to continue on this path isn't just a bad idea that might not pan out. It's illegal. Misrepresentation to the US government isn't taken lightly, and pursuing a K-1 as a non-married couple when that is not the case is quite the misrepresentation. Application has to be cancelled and the appropriate CR-1 paperwork must be filed (and the clock will start back at 0).
Nigeria is known for being a difficult embassy to get through as it is. I'm certain this would be something they check for before issuing the visa.

I agree with everyone else. immigration can make getting married a bit less glamorous sometimes. So it's really up to you....Marry legally now and have a ceremony later, go back to Canada before your status expires and file the proper fiance/spouse visa, or risk being out of status.

To add to what's already been said...
I'm 25 weeks now, and my husband just went to England for our nephew's baptism (and the only time this year we can likely see his family). I was told very early in my pregnancy that it was not advisable to travel internationally past 20 weeks. I've had no complications at all, but as others have said, blood clots and just the uncomfortableness of it all isn't advisable. My doctor also said that flying (pressure changes in particular) can induce labor in certain situations, so the further along you are, the higher the risk becomes. I know that everyone is different, but sitting at my desk at work for more than an hour is uncomfortable, so the thought of a plane is just dreadful.
And to answer the original question (which others have already), yes she is flagged in the system, and other than having stronger ties to Australia, there is nothing you can do but wait for the spouse visa to be approved.

Marrying a USC does not need to be followed by AOS. Lots of people enter on Tourist visas and come and marry and go home. Or marry here and move elsewhere.
I think the issue would be if your current visa is expired/about to expire and you would be getting married in part to get the GC. I'm still not completely clear on your current visa status, but if you are returning to the US to finish your PhD program or continue schooling and will also marry your gf, then not an issue. If your PhD program is complete and you have no other business in the US and are coming back with the sole intent of marrying and adjusting status, then you may have an issue.

There was another thread recently about an immigration office giving this advice (unless that was you).
As Boiler said...if she is already in the US, she can adjust status.
If she is still in Canada, then coming in on a visitor visa (or whatever the technical term is for Canadians) with intent to adjust is fraud. If she crosses the border and tells them she is planning to stay, she'll be turned away. If she doesn't tell them, then she has lied to immigration officials. Neither are a good way to go.

Not to stray too off topic from the OP's post....but there is no immigration reason you can't visit after you file. Plenty of people do it, especially visiting from VWP countries.

No one said all cops are saints. But it would be strange to have someone sentenced to 1+ years to do something that didn't have any solid basis in court. If she changed her story and showed no signs of abuse, they couldn't just throw him in for false DV charges. That's why everyone thinks there must be more to the story.

It's a red flag if it's culturally not the norm. For cultures that are heavily family/having children oriented, a young man marrying an older woman (likely outside of child-bearing age), is against the cultural norms and causes a red flag.

Make sure some of those tickets are dated within the last 2 years since that is the requirement for the I-129f.
You should be fine. Netherlands isn't high fraud, and you seem to have a legit relationship with proof. Be sure to follow the guides on VJ closely for everything else you need to send with your packet!

5 years seems pretty reasonable and shouldn't be anything to worry about
The only way it could even come into play is if your case has a number of red flags (you can search for those on VJ as they've been discussed numerous times) and this is the icing on the cake
But alone, no, 5 years and a divorce shouldn't be an issue

No one said all cops are saints. But it would be strange to have someone sentenced to 1+ years to do something that didn't have any solid basis in court. If she changed her story and showed no signs of abuse, they couldn't just throw him in for false DV charges. That's why everyone thinks there must be more to the story.

No one said all cops are saints. But it would be strange to have someone sentenced to 1+ years to do something that didn't have any solid basis in court. If she changed her story and showed no signs of abuse, they couldn't just throw him in for false DV charges. That's why everyone thinks there must be more to the story.

No one said all cops are saints. But it would be strange to have someone sentenced to 1+ years to do something that didn't have any solid basis in court. If she changed her story and showed no signs of abuse, they couldn't just throw him in for false DV charges. That's why everyone thinks there must be more to the story.

No one said all cops are saints. But it would be strange to have someone sentenced to 1+ years to do something that didn't have any solid basis in court. If she changed her story and showed no signs of abuse, they couldn't just throw him in for false DV charges. That's why everyone thinks there must be more to the story.

No one said all cops are saints. But it would be strange to have someone sentenced to 1+ years to do something that didn't have any solid basis in court. If she changed her story and showed no signs of abuse, they couldn't just throw him in for false DV charges. That's why everyone thinks there must be more to the story.

No one said all cops are saints. But it would be strange to have someone sentenced to 1+ years to do something that didn't have any solid basis in court. If she changed her story and showed no signs of abuse, they couldn't just throw him in for false DV charges. That's why everyone thinks there must be more to the story.