IDeciam

My fiance and I had our visa application approved at the NVC level and it was sent to his home consulate, and we were notified. Around the same time, he began having severe headaches and was hospitalized. The diagnosis was blood clots in the brain. He was in and out of hospital/treatment for months afterwards.

We did not ever schedule a visa appointment. Now we want to do so, but we found an error in the forms that I originally submitted. Instead of his birthplace, I put down his mother's birthplace on both of the forms that asked for it.

Now we don't know what to do. Should we start the process again? My biggest fear has been that he would die before seeing him again. We talk about my moving there and getting married in his country. I can't get any information from either the NVC or his consulate; no one answers any calls or emails.

The other information on the forms is correct, but the birthplace is wrong. Do we have to scratch the whole process? Is there anything to do?

I remember once I was teaching at a private elementary school, and they were supposed to be learning the differences between patriotism and nationalism. So I told them that patriotism is loving your country. Nationalism is thinking your country is better than everyone else's.

So one student said, "what if it is better?"

I said, "Okay, tell me what you mean by better. What makes a country better?"

He said, "We are stronger and we have more stuff."

That's nationalism. That's what the lady in the article is complaining about. Being treated in a condescending way.

(The conversation continued because I asked him, "if there is a boy in the school who is stronger and has more things than any other boy, does that make him better? " The boy (and the whole class) said, "No way!" But it is all a little abstract for children, they just repeat what they hear from mom and dad.......)

Ungrateful twit.

Why is she ungrateful?

I would have felt the same way she did at a ceremony like that...and I am born and raised American and always been very patriotic. But we have a way of talking about people from other countries like they are so damn lucky to get to be here....it IS condescending. It's one of our national cultural characteristics, and one of the things people from other countries hate about us. And I don't blame them. I would feel the SAME WAY in their shoes.

Patriotism is a virtue. NATIONALISM is a vice. It's just dressed-up arrogance.

Not sure if the story you have is actually true....

In Colorado you don't need anyone to marry you, the bride and groom can do it themselves, no witnesses are necessary. Of course, you still need it register if you want to make it official. I know this because this is how we married.

Also, marrying in a Catholic church is not "marrying", and even if the priest was licensed to do so, unless a license and registration occurred, they are not married under the law; but that is the US; in other countries is not the same.

On the other side, in TX, it is only necesary to represent that you are married, have some joint accounts and presto; under TX eyes, you are; but not under the USCIS eyes.

Why would people keep a secret they are married? I can think of many reasons, but in all cases is their business.

I'm back to my last post: the only opinion that counts is the one USCIS will have, regardless of any legal cases you can bring up.

The people I am referring to are not getting fiancee visas. They are already here in the US and they have applied for some kind of process for a green card. It basically has to do with the waiting periods being so long...years in many cases. If you change something like marital status, you can have to start all over again.

Not sure if the story you have is actually true....

In Colorado you don't need anyone to marry you, the bride and groom can do it themselves, no witnesses are necessary. Of course, you still need it register if you want to make it official. I know this because this is how we married.

Also, marrying in a Catholic church is not "marrying", and even if the priest was licensed to do so, unless a license and registration occurred, they are not married under the law; but that is the US; in other countries is not the same.

On the other side, in TX, it is only necesary to represent that you are married, have some joint accounts and presto; under TX eyes, you are; but not under the USCIS eyes.

Why would people keep a secret they are married? I can think of many reasons, but in all cases is their business.

I'm back to my last post: the only opinion that counts is the one USCIS will have, regardless of any legal cases you can bring up.

It's true story, I am sure about that.

Last night I contacted a Catholic priest whose congregation is mainly immigrants and put the question to him. He also said that he cannot do a religious ceremony without a legal ceremony.

I asked him if the reasons were because of the US law or because of Church law and he said "both." And he said there are a lot of people in this situation, he sees it daily, and he really feels for them.

I agree with JIJourney.

I do not see the point of discussing about wedding (religious or not) for K1 before going to the US.

I personnaly do not believe in the fiancé status. "When you want to get married to someone, just get married as soon as you have made the decision". This is my way of thinking. So I totally get people who want to not wait to get married.

There are two choices in immigration for fiancée/spouse. Nobody is forcing anybody to stay unmarried if you want to get married in any form.

If someone wants to get married in the country of the migrant (and if they have the possibility): it is great, it might put actually more meaning in the wedding and then he/she can apply for CR1. That simple.

In the examples described in the previous posts, nowhere is mentionned the exact reason why they couldn't choose CR1, or why they couldn't get married in the US. It seems for me just stories that people tell. If it is not, please give us more details.

Okay, it's good you asked this. Maybe the question does not make sense to people because they are just thinking about a 'ceremony.'

This is not a hypothetical situation. This is about people who want to be married religiously because their visa process is dragging on for a year or five years. Some people cannot afford, financially, timewise, or for other reasons, to cancel the process. It is not a hypothetical situation; I have been working closely with immigrants for over 15 years. I know many in this situation. Usually they decide to live together but they do it with great conflict of conscience.

Sigh. No, it's not standard, and if you look outside the Abrahamic religions, you'll see it's a massive toss-up if it's even a part of the religious doctrines. (Again, 42,000 religions. Right now in the world. Are you asserting that you've done significant and in depth research about enough of those 42,000 religions to make such a claim?) For example, bundling was frequently practiced across Christian Europe and early Christian America, and while some societies utilized bundling boards or bags, others encouraged intimacy. (And frequently even when boards or bags were used, they were tied loosely or ceremoniously, in order to give the air of "proper.")

It's very common on VJ for people to assume that "religion" means Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, or Mormon), Judaism, or Islam (Sunni, Shia, Sushi), and that their interpretation is the one true way. But VJ is a worldwide service, and there are more religions worldwide than those. Making broad statements about what religion means when you really mean the Abrahamics, or one particular flavor of one particular Abrahamic following one particular prophet, is nicely Othering and Alienating, and does a nice job of implying that if you're not those religions, you're not religious. It is, in a word, obnoxious.

But you're right; there's certainly little point in discussing this further.

Yeah, I'm not talking about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam (although that IS half of the world's population, so not exactly a narrow minority view). I am talking about cultures that had no contact with any of these three religions.

What you are claiming does not even making sense. Are you saying that in the centuries upon centuries before birth control, women just slept around outside of being in a family (marital) relationship and there were no consequences or ramifications for that? Everybody just raised the kids in one happy commune? I think you've studied more theory than history.

And you are right, it can't be discussed, because it is a topic people are too attached to their own opinions about and don't want to be bothered by the facts. So, in most cases, it should be immediaely dropped.

WHY would you take such a chance?

Anything,., more than an engagement "party" can be considered a "ceremony".,.,.,,.and just one person, one picture, one doucment.,.,.,.,,.and you are in serious trouble!

Is it worth it?

Please, no ceremonies, no religious "persons" presiding over the gathering..,.,have seen many "go down" for such ceremonies, an engagement party.,.,,.is the limit,.,.to my thinking, and what I have read, right here on this web-site!

Actually, there are really enormous reasons for taking such a chance.

In some cases, there are people who began the process for a K-1, or another type of visa as a single. Maybe at the beginning, it seemed like a good choice, but not after it drags on for 1+ years. They end up living in the same place geographically. What would another couple do in that situation? Live together. No one has mentioned that the USCIS has a problem with that. They live 'as if' they are married. I know plenty of couples, USA based, that do this.

The problem with discussing this topic is that the majority of people assume that a religious ceremony is something for show or for celebration. For some people it is, but not for everyone.

42,000 religions.

It's not even an accurate description of Protestant Christianity or Catholicism for much of its history. (And do you really want a lecture on historical wedding dress design, or the change to a fitted bodice from empire waist and why?)

If a couple really does not want to live together before marriage, but they have managed to satisfy the rules of meeting one another (or satisfy USCIS about not being able to meet before the marriage because of the rules of their religion), they don't have to. Friends and hotel rooms exist, and getting married quickly off the plane is also an option. Even something as simple as having a chaperone stay with them for the period of time between deplaning and marriage would satisfy strict religious beliefs. It might not be the lavish religious ceremony they want, but with the planning allowed once a K-1 VISA is granted, almost anyone should be able to have at least a small religious ceremony basically right off the plane.

I will say, thought, that I've learned quite a bit about world religions. If you look at the religious traditions for almost every culture for most of history, you find that is a common theme. There is no moral ideal that people don't fail at, but as far as what people generally believed was right or wrong, that one is pretty standard.

But this is something people have strong opinions about so everyone is free to think what they want.

42,000 religions.

It's not even an accurate description of Protestant Christianity or Catholicism for much of its history. (And do you really want a lecture on historical wedding dress design, or the change to a fitted bodice from empire waist and why?)

If a couple really does not want to live together before marriage, but they have managed to satisfy the rules of meeting one another (or satisfy USCIS about not being able to meet before the marriage because of the rules of their religion), they don't have to. Friends and hotel rooms exist, and getting married quickly off the plane is also an option. Even something as simple as having a chaperone stay with them for the period of time between deplaning and marriage would satisfy strict religious beliefs. It might not be the lavish religious ceremony they want, but with the planning allowed once a K-1 VISA is granted, almost anyone should be able to have at least a small religious ceremony basically right off the plane.

Hmm....I think you missed my point but it's not something to get into. Prefer not to talk about it.

How is this a big burden on people who believe in not living together before marriage, as opposed to everyone else who is kept apart while VISA documents are processing?

(Also, do keep in mind that you're not talking about "religious marriage." You're talking about one rather narrow religious focus, generally from one narrow interpretation of one of 42,000 religions. There are lots of people who have religious weddings who have different beliefs than ones about not sharing a bed before marriage.)

It isn't narrow, it is the majority interpretation for most of history and for most religions.

And, anybody who is kept apart has a burden. But it's a different situation, because some people can be geographically in the same place but still can't be together, because of the religious ceremony issue, which is irrelevant to another person.

This will throw a wrench into the gears....What if you do it after the interview.... but before they come back??

Uh, my guess is, it would be the same thing. If you say you are coming 'to get married' and someone thinks you are 'already married', I guess you could be denied entry at the airport. Because, what I'm seeing is, the decision is based on whoever makes the decision.

What bothers me is that this all creates a very big burden on people who have strong beliefs that you should not live together (etc) before marriage, at least a religious marriage. Whereas a couple without religious beliefs will not be affected. A religious couple is forced to live separately no matter how long (1-2 years, etc) the visa process ends up taking, even if location, finances, or any other factor does not demand this. Or, in the case of my friends, they had to choose between YEARS apart or going against their religious beliefs.

Mike&Lin are correct. For example, my aunt and uncle had: a Buddhist ceremony led by a monk, a Catholic ceremony led by a priest a few days after the Buddhist one, and were officially married (a few days after the Catholic ceremony) by a justice of the peace.

A religious ceremony is not always a legal ceremony in the United States. But because this is variable around the world, it's best not to take the chance that a petition will be denied because the IO believes you are already married.

Hmmm....these answers really make me question and wonder about conversations I've had over the years.

I knew a couple in Colorado who were immigrants in some kind of process, living here for years. They finally went and got married in the Catholic Church, but because they could not register it, it was all done in secret. Even I remember them saying the priest could have got in trouble by the state for that. So I always had that idea that the priest was taking a risk. And it was not the only case I've heard of, and no one publicizes them. Why the need to keep it a secret then?

I'm wondering if there is more to the story. I am going to ask someone.

Is it for your VJ profile photo?

Profile Settings >> Photo >> Change my photo

You have to press the blue button "DONE" after uploading a picture.

I did that (press Done) already about 15 times. I always get the same result. That same old photo keeps popping up. It's not even a photo of me.....

Yes, I think! My VJ profile photo.

Can anyone help?

I accidentally hit the wrong photo when I was trying to upload a photo for my profile. So, I deleted it. Then, I tried to upload the correct photo. It would show like it was uploading but then -guess what!- the old photo would appear. the old photo just keeps popping up every time. I tried logging out and logging back in. Nothing changed. Can you help? I want to upload a photo. Instead I just have this big goat picture on my signature....that is kind of like my revenge...

Using the words 'logic' and 'USCIS' in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Trying to find logic will drive you to drink or jump out the window. Is best to recognize that they hold the rules of the game and one needs to follow them for a good outcome (or at least for a chance of a good outcome). Arguing about the logic will get us nowhere; however, there is a level a control we have in that petitions can be frontloaded, timing of the different stages can be leveraged, actual entry in to the country can be planned, etc.

My two cardinal rules when dealing with USCIS, DOS, etc are:

1. I/We never lie- this is pretty obvious

2. I/we do not take unnecesary risks-meaning, if there is any activity, event, scenario that could be interpreted incorrectly or as fraud, then I/we don't risk it.

Remember that the opinions, comments and judgements of anyone here count absolutely zero, zilch; Notice I'm not saying they are good or bad; only that the only opinion that counts is the one USCIS has.

LOL.

I think what you are saying is that dealing with the USCIS is more of an art than a science. ;-)

No, depending on the state, THEY are not allowed to perform the ceremony to solemnize the license unless THEY are registered with the state. This has nothing to do with legal requirements to register a ceremony performed outside the bounds of a marriage license issued by the state. They cannot be prosecuted for performing a ceremony that has no accompanying license. In that case it is a purely religious ceremony between God and the parties involved. They are married in their eyes and the eyes of the church. Does the state recognize it as a legal marriage? Maybe, maybe not but nobody is going to be prosecuted for performing a religious ceremony. Next time someone tells you this have them show you the actual statute that says it is illegal to perform a wedding ceremony without a marriage license.

The reason I think you are wrong about this is because I have heard it from ordained ministers multiple times, and I believe they know what their rights and obligations are. I did a whole research project on this issue.

There are people who would like to get married in the church but they can't because the minister can't just marry them "religiously"....and they can't afford to get married civilly because their visa processes are still pending (sometimes for many years.)

I believe that is incorrect. From my understanding you can be married by an ordained minister of any faith, who is empowered to do legal weddings, but if you do it without a government issued marriage license, it does not count legally.

Happens a lot in Utah.....there was even a recent U.S. Federal Court case that...kinda-sorta deals with the issue of whether a marriage without a marriage license counts as a marriage. Brown v. Buhman

From the ruling:

What was the ruling?

Was it a polygamy case?

mmm.....there was always sexual abuse and sexual deviance....

but this is a case of trafficking, of buying and selling children, often across international borders.

I think it is common to just say "it's reported more now," but I personally believe it has increased...a lot.

Granted the internet and other modern technology make it easier for pedophiles to lure their victims, but I don't believe that pedophilia in general is any more prevalant today than it was 30 or 100 years ago. Also, the coverage of these crimes in the media is much more pronounced.

In many of these cases, they are not luring their victims...rather, they are being lured. What I mean by that is the child trafficking; there are adults who are selling and trafficking these children and offering them to other people for sale.

I believe this is incorrect. Most if not all states require a Marriage License as proof of your marriage(we're not even considering Common Law Marriages here). They also regulate who can actually solemnize that marriage license(certificate). But states cannot require, absence of a license, registration of a ceremony performed by any minister. The "church" may recognize the wedding without a license, but it doesn't mean the state does. Maybe there are ministers that will not perform a ceremony without a license, in that case their only real requirement is to sign the marriage license that they solemnized the license.

In my case my Filipina fiancée lives and works in Singapore. I will bring her to the US on the K1 and we will marry here. Later, once we can afford another trip, we will travel to the Philippines to have a ceremony there for her family.

On the other hand, an ordained recognized minister, such as a Catholic priest, is not allowed to perform a marriage ceremony without it also being registered legally. Or, in these cases, they could 'marry' these people, but they are not allowed by the state. I've been told this numerous times.

They can be prosecuted.

Put it this way, if you were to have a religious ceremony would you consider yourself married or not?

If no, then why have it in the first place.

If yes, then would it be unreasonable for the US government to also consider you married?

One line I've read many times here on VJ concerning people getting religious ceremonies before their K1 is that for immigration purposes a religious ceremony can be considered 'not married enough to apply for a spousal visa but too married to get a fiance one'

Okay. For example. I have a family in my neighborhood. The man and the woman are living together and have kids together. They consider themselves married. Their kids and all their extended family apparently consider themselves married. But they are not legally married. They have told me they can't get married because of immigration.

They'd like to get married in the church because they are considered to be living in sin. But the church can't marry them because then they are also married legally.

If yes, then would it be unreasonable for the US government to also consider you married?

The US government (or any government) does not grant marital status to people based on them considering themselves married. I think this is a pretty hot debate in USA right now and it should be clear to everyone that considering yourself married and being legally married are not the same thing. So, in answer, yes, I think that would not be consistent.

C'mon. What kind of man would arrange to protect 14 year old girl by himself!!

It's kind of like how lots of whack jobs seek out jobs as hospital porters in hospitals.

Did we read the same article? I think it was a 14 year old boy??

I think there are definitely people who would go out of their way to help or protect a young person, with sincere good intentions, even taking a risk to themselves. It's possible someone could just do it spontaneously, without thinking of calling authorities. Maybe a kid says "please don't call the police." That does happen.

However, in the other cases, the article says the men were sexting the kids (or undercover police officers) before arriving on site. That's not protecting. So,

hopefully, the police have specific evidence beyond just the fact that the man showed up.

Child trafficking is such a nightmare for these kids; I thank God for any attempt to put an end to it.

I appreciate the answers. I am not really asking about a specific situation, by the way. Rather, I have encountered conversations about this for several years now

and never really understood the issue. I've met several people over the years who said they'd like to get married but can't because of immigration. These were people who were already living together. I never understood what immigration has to do with whether or not a person can get married.

I am trying to understand the underlying principles.

Here is the info from the US Embassy in the Phillipines. Many Filipinos have been surprised their Catholic wedding without a civil registration is still a valid marriage disqualifying the K-1.

http://manila.usembassy.gov/marriage.html

Note: A Catholic religious ceremony may be performed even without a civil ceremony and the marriage will still be considered legal in the Philippines.

Okay, that is no surprise to me. It is because of the particular relationship between religion and state in that country.

But I feel very sure that it varies from country to country, between religions, etc,

Even here in the USA, if I make up my own religion with five other friends and the next week I decide to get married in my new religion, the marriage is not going to have any legal definition. But, if I get married by a Southern Baptist minister, it is a different story.

Correct or not?