Andy

1 hour ago, geowrian said:

Sure, an officer can use any reason he wants to raise the bar on what is considered to be a bona fide marriage as that requirement is at his/her discretion. It doesn't mean doing so is in accordance with USCIS policy, the AFM, or INA, but it can happen. I would just note that the the officer were to utilize preconceived intent in their stated decision for denial, they are opening themselves up for a challenge.

 

Sure, they can always consider willful, material misrepresentation. However, they cannot consider preconceived intent as a basis for misrepresentation as an IR of a USC. Note that this is the way it applies to USCIS...DOS is not bound by this for issuance of a visa (hence the "new"/updated policy by DOS).

 

Are you aware of any cases where USICS has tried to use preconceived intent as a basis for a denial of AOS or a misrepresentation finding of an IR of a USC?

The INA, and USCIS policy gives broad authority for immigration officers to examine cases in whichever way they see fit. For sure, judgements, particularly from immigration appeals can create additional guidance, but rarely result in the USCIS modifying regulations governing the work of field offices. The emphasis remains on officers having broad discretion in operational terms, with a view that in the event they overstep and a judge pushes back, it is only evidence that they are doing their job - even if a little overzealously in a few instances.

By the way, material misrepresentation does not need to be willful, which is why I said that it can be 'in order to gain entry' or 'lead to entry'. The weight given to a material misrepresentation may be determined by whether it is intentional or not, but it would remain a misrepresentation. This is nothing to do with 'preconceived intent', and not related to it, hence raised separately.

In terms of cases where preconceived intent has been found and AOS denied - there have been many cases over the years. It's important to note the 'substantial equities' issue in this instance, because rulings are not that preconceived intent was insufficient to deny AOS, but that where substantial equities exist in the case, these must also be considered. In many cases, these factors are not sufficiently present (for example, visa waiver holders, who cannot request voluntary departure, or where a non-immigrant would suffer an automatic bar to re-entry and thus be unable to return to their home country and apply for a visa in the appropriate way). That is why I made the point that benefits cannot accrue directly from unlawful entry. For those entitled, they can accrue indirectly, via such things as voluntary departure, or of course appeals where the individual is entitled to pursue due process. 

EDITED TO ADD: The reason I raise these aspects of this case is that in my time actively participating here (many years ago), one of the principle aims of the forum as a whole was not just to answer the specifics of each question, but also to explain the context and interpretations for the benefit of other readers. In those days there was very little in the way of coherent information about US immigration procedures, policies and practices, and Visa Journey was one of the first (and best) places for broader explanations and detail.

5 minutes ago, geowrian said:

See Matter of Cavazos and Matter of Battista, in which the BIA ruled otherwise. Or more specifically, they cannot use preconceived intent as the basis for denial of an I-485.

There are two things here. The first is evidentiary: is there, or is there not, evidence of intent at the time of entry. If there is no evidence, merely a supposition, that supposition cannot in itself form the basis of an AOS denial. However, the lack of evidence of intent at that point does not prevent the immigration officer from, in practical terms, raising the bar on relationship evidence to more closely examine the marriage to determine if it is genuine, or for the purposes of obtaining a green card.

Secondly, whether at the time of entry the visitor provided a material misrepresentation in order to gain entry, or which led to entry. If there was a material misrepresentation, the entry was unlawful, and benefits cannot accrue directly from it. 

That latter point is why it is significantly more hazardous for visa waiver users, because their entry is based on them having waived their right to due process. Thus if a material misrepresentation is judged to have occurred at the time of entry, they cannot file to stay deportation, because they have waived that right. 

On 9/11/2017 at 7:38 PM, Going through said:

... intent is determined at port of entry, not at the interview.  During the interview, the validity of the marriage/relationship is the focus....intent becomes something that was already adjudicated (for lack of a better term, but it fits) before that stage....

This is both right, and wrong. Intent is a primary determinant at the port of entry, because if a non-immigrant visa holder (or visa waiver user) is considered to have intent to remain, their entry will be refused.

However, subsequent circumstances may color, or change, the perception of intent, and at an AOS interview, the immigration officer is quite within his/her rights to reconsider the question of intent, in the light of events after entry, for which the official at the port of entry could not have known or considered.

These situations where non-immigrant visa holders, or more riskily, visa waiver users, marry, stay and file for AOS have clear potential for fraud and are generally considered carefully in the light of possible intent. Even in circumstances such as being described here, where a B2 holder has entered the US before meeting the US citizen - that would appear to remove all possibility of intent - but an immigration official at AOS could, if there is reason to doubt, wonder if the couple did in fact have any prior contact, or, depending on other factors, whether the visitor may have had intent to find a partner and marry if it proved possible to do so - that would again raise the issue of intent.

What tends to demonstrate there was no intent, is the degree to which the visitor did not take actions to close out their lives in their home country, and thus had a job to go back to, bank accounts, savings, financial commitments and the like, all of which had to be wound up later.

Of course, some immigration officials aren't interested in delving into these details and focus instead on the relationship and the possibility of green card fraud. But that is certainly not the case for all, and personally I would not want to take a chance on getting one of the more compliant ones at interview.

1 hour ago, kwanggrawi said:

Hi ,

I wonder if I need to get more evidence , so fat I have our baby birth certificate (yes,we have a baby) , joint bank account , marriage certificate and pictures of us thats all. Is this enough?

I have read that other have like insurance together and etc. 

thank you. 

It's not just joint names on documents that you need to think about, it is documentary evidence that you live at the same address, so a drivers license with the address, vehicle registration with your name (or joint names) and that address on it. Insurance documents in your name (or joint names) at that address. Think official, so documents from authoritative sources such as local, state or federal government, financial institutions, phone companies, and the like which show you or both of you at that address are the most helpful. 

The more of these kind of documents you have that connect your name to the address, the better. Less authoritative documents such as photos or greetings cards addressed to you both are also useful, but because they don't represent something official, carry rather less weight.

However, don't think so much about single things as the overall weight of evidence of your relationship that you can present. Every couple are different, so immigration officers are used to dealing with all kinds of evidence and circumstances. What you do need to understand however is the need to demonstrate that you both live in the same place, so evidence tying you both to the address is important. Ironically, rather more important than the existence of a baby.

On 9/15/2017 at 12:18 PM, Shizou said:

so i would have that crime in the US? not the UK? 

 

iam ok with being banned from the states just not having here in the UK

A forgery prosecution in England and Wales would be predicated on evidence of an attempt to gain a form of benefit under the laws of England and Wales. While technically you have committed forgery in the context of signing your wife's name on US immigration documents, the benefit you sought (accidentally or otherwise) is not within the jurisdiction of English courts, so there is no realistic hope of conviction. As such a prosecution would be unlikely, unless the US embassy forwarded details to UK authorities and requested a prosecution. Unless an argument could be made against you that you were seeking to avoid something such as payment of a debt legally owed in the UK, by emigrating before action could be taken against you, there would be little of a viable case for a court to hear.

If you are a resident of Scotland, the law is a little different, but even then, without the US embassy forwarding details of the fraud, the authorities would have no way to know it had been perpetrated. 

The benefit you sought was under US law, and you could face criminal charges there, under federal law (US immigration is federal, so the benefit you sought was in federal jurisdiction), but unless you are within the jurisdiction of a federal court (meaning you are present within the US or one of its territories), the authorities there cannot act against you directly, other than to bar you from entry. They could, of course, seek your extradition, but that seems very unlikely when they would see a bar on entry as being significant punishment.

In any event, seeking to withdraw your visa application may help mitigate any further action than a probable ban.

don't worry about what lawyers say

Oh, always worry about what they say, just don't readily believe a word of it!!

Seriously though, visa fraud is the primary responsibility of DoS consular posts issuing visas, not the USCIS adjudication process, because the incidence of visa fraud is not uniform across all countries. Quite the opposite. Given the basic rule in both USCIS and DoS processing of K-1 cases is that the onus is on the petitioner and beneficiary to demonstrate they are not committing visa fraud, not on the USCIS/DoS to demonstrate they are, there is actually little need to have new rules or extra processing time, because the old rules and procedures work as perfectly well as anything else would.

...On her email our lawyer said that the reason why USCIS is in some sort of a slow mode lately is because it is conducting 'extensive' background investigations because there has been tremendous amount of frauds in the fiance(e) visas that has been found out.....

I would be very cautious about taking what you've been told as meaningful and accurate, because there is no indication inside the USCIS that it is. Service Centers have been undergoing a significant amount of rationalization and internal reorganizations as workloads have been shifted around and that has caused a lot of disruptions, which create almost instant backlogs due to sheer volume of cases. Those of us who've been 'in the system' for years have seen it all before, because this sort of thing is the way bureaucracies work, and particularly how they respond to their own inefficiencies when under political pressure to improve performance.

I would assume the (sadly) usual USCIS inefficiencies and knee-jerk reactions to workload are far more likely as an explanation for CSC delays than that your attorney has given you particularly accurate insider information.

My question now is this: Do i go crawling and begging or go on with the waiver? If i go crawling and begging her and she decides to sign with me it will save me lawyers fees. On the other hand should i just face the reality of my situation get a lawyer and get over with my worries?

There is just no way anyone but you can answer that question, because only you know the circumstances, the personalities, the issues and the way it all feels. All we can do really is give you the practical details about what your options are in regard to immigration issues and the broad practicalities - which I think has been done here.

You face a rather uncertain future either way as you obviously appreciate. Jointly filed I-751 petitions are far easier to get approved than self-petitioned ones, even if only because they fit in the mainstream of cases so they need less examination and personal judgement on the part of immigration officials adjudicating them. On the other hand, even if your wife is prepared to jointly file, there is no guarantee she will not withdraw (or threaten it) or refuse to co-operate (or threaten it) if the case is referred for interview. If she likes to wield power over you, it seems likely she would use what leverage she could, and a joint I-751 might seem to her to be such leverage. Only you know her well enough to make that judgement, or know whether you could cope with the stresses and strains if it were to happen.

On the other hand, self-petitioning takes all the power away from her, and means your fate is entirely in your own hands. Approval then depends on what evidence you have been able to provide to establish the on-going abuse as sufficient to destroy the marriage you entered into in good faith. Only you know what evidence you may be able to put together, both in terms of having entered into marriage in good faith, and been the victim of abuse which then caused it to collapse.

One thing is for sure, you are well advised to 'face the reality of your situation' as you put it, and think in practical terms, not emotional ones. Unless you are prepared to co-file with your wife and trust she will remain cooperative, a good immigration attorney is an absolute essential. The sooner you hire one the sooner you can get your life and future back under some semblance of your own control.

I intend to write a book based on my experience as an alien or k-1 spouse. I have no doubt that my situation is one of many cases. I have many times gotten to the point where i want to give up everything that i have going on for me here in the U.S and return home where i am from so has to have a peace of ming and no to be a slave of love.

Over a year ago my spouse wanted to prove a point to me over an argument .Even though she was the one that did me wrong she called the cops on me and lied that i hit her (guess what she was the one that hit me).I was flabbergasted and can never forget or forgive. Anyway police report says" domestic battery"I was arrested taken to jail for just a night .I was not charged and the case was dismissed in court. You may wounder what i am still doing in such a spouse...my kids?

My question now is if i am filling out the 1-175 form where it says" have you been arrested, jailed "e.t.c.Since it was dismissed do i still thick the box or skip it?

I used to be very active in immigration casework, and yours is sadly not at all unusual. Indeed, there have been many, many people over the years who have come to the US with good intentions and who married in good faith, and have found their existence here to be one of vulnerability and isolation. Abuse too, sad to say. Neither has it been unusual to see cases where a US citizen spouse has level accusations of abuse or battery, sometimes for leverage, sometimes as a way to try and extricate themselves from marriage and try and have their partner deported (though it doesn't work quite that simply as they later find out) or just to demonstrate that they can. It may not help you at all to know you are not alone in this experience, but you are certainly not!

Neither are the USCIS entirely unaware of it happening either, or of the human issues and the sort of reasoning as you have expressed. As an agency they don't much care, but individual adjudicating officers see this regularly, so they have a better understanding and feel for it than most would give them credit for. Indeed, your point about sticking it out for the sake of the children is another very common theme in this sort of situation.

In terms of the arrest, as said you must include it. However, depending on the documentation of the incident you may have or be able to obtain, it may actually help you. Remember, the crux of this is to gather evidence which shows you are the victim of abuse, that being one single incident.

The law is pretty clear, you can't file if you are separated or in divorce proceedings.

Yes you can. Check the current I-751 itself, it allows for self-petitioning prior to divorce in cases of abuse.

(immigration) is govern by state law

Not quite sure what you mean, but to be clear, immigration is entirely federal law. Family law is (almost) entirely State.

Yes, I know that...but that's if his immigration attorney tells him that he has enough proof to make such filing. We don't know...if he does...good for him, he will be good to go.

Oh yeah...I mean...marriage/divorce and anullment is goverment by State law not federal (like immigration) I guess that's what I mean.

There are several very obvious things in this case if taken at face value based on what has been posted. The first is that an I-751 is pending, whether immediately or into the future we don't know. The second is that the OP is the victim of abuse. The third is that the spouse is resistant to co-signing an I-751. Additionally, there are children involved, though we don't know whether they are US citizens or not - a factor which could be material in the choice of filing.

Immigration makes it very clear that in a case where an I-751 is pending but the immigrant spouse has been victim of abuse and the citizen spouse refuses to sign, the immigrant can self-petition, and no divorce is required to have been actioned or even filed in order to allow that. There is nothing in the immigration issues here more complex than that. To be sure, self-petitioning on the basis of abuse will require supporting evidence, and good legal counsel is always advisable when stepping outside the mainstream of cases, but the OP here has very clear and simple rights to self petition.

The family law issues which you raise are entirely valid, but are not part of the immigration case - and since the OP can self-petition if the abuse is as described, and needs not wait for divorce to do so, there is no issue relating to the family law side of this horrible situation which would render that more imperative than pursuing the immigration issue where that is pending and failure to do so would result in loss of status, putting the OP into an even more hazardous (and much more expensive) immigration situation.

Bearing in mind that USCIS adjudication of a self-petitioned I-751 where abuse is being claimed may be affected by a delay in filing ('exactly how much abuse must there have been' being the most obvious question an adjudicator would ponder) there is no advantage or purpose to delaying filing, other than to gather and assemble evidence and possibly make final attempts at resolving the matrimonial conflicts. The law however was written very clearly to provide a means to protect victims of abuse from having to delay.

That's really my only point. In broad terms your comments regarding the family law aspects of this are right - just that while those are of utmost importance in the human sense, they are not necessarily so in the legal sense.

The law is pretty clear, you can't file if you are separated or in divorce proceedings.

Yes you can. Check the current I-751 itself, it allows for self-petitioning prior to divorce in cases of abuse.

(immigration) is govern by state law

Not quite sure what you mean, but to be clear, immigration is entirely federal law. Family law is (almost) entirely State.

I don't think the rules have changed, it sounds like this (cool) guy was HAD.

We will see I guess. But let me ask you this. When people here go for your AOS medical appointment and they say there is a rule change and they have to have more tests, are they gonna say 'No' or roll up their sleeve and lie back? I thought so.

I don't think it's very 'cool' to accuse a federally appointed civil surgeon of being crooked - most likely outside the TAC of this website.

And having looked online it seems new rules did indeed come into play on May 1st 2008.

Actually this sort of thing is common, and has been for years - often the result of individual doctors not correctly understanding, or entirely misinterpreting, the rules - due to the fact the rules have some in-built flexibility to allow for additional testing of some individuals where there have been minor irregularities in results from the original medical, or medical conditions which warrant an additional test.

Of course you're right that when someone is told they have to have a new test or new shots or whatever they can hardly refuse so it's a moot point for the individual whether it's a rule change or not!

Make no mistake about depending on who you meet abuses and violence are being carried out by men and women. The condition on the green card gives some the petitioner's spouse a lot of guts and power to misbehave and take an undue advantage of their alien spouse. I have been told by my spouse that the laws in U.S favors women more that men.Whatever the woman says goes whether a woman is telling the truth or a lie.

It is certainly the case that there are women abusers just as there are men. Sadly though, society as a whole tends to take less seriously tales of abuse of men by women, and USCIS are no exception to that. Evidence is the key, and the more solid the evidence of abuse in support of your self-petition the better.

How do i get a good lawyer with an affordable fee to file my waiver?

There's no easy answer to that because all lawyers are different. You don't, however, need to limit your selection of immigration attorneys to those in your locality since immigration law is federal, thus doesn't vary around the country. Your family law attorney does need to be local however, since each State has it's own rules about separations, divorce and child custody.

There is a good rough guide to finding a suitable attorney at http://www.visalaw.com/02mar5/12mar502.html In itself this is the site of a highly respected immigration law firm, but the guidance is valid even so.

Actually, I believe an I-751 with "d" marked requires a divorce decree.

Indeed, which is why I said "...instead of checking 'a' and filing together, you would check 'd' (if divorced or the marriage otherwise terminated)...." It might have been better if I had phrased that as if divorced or the marriage annulled which would be in line with the phrasing on the form itself.

Right now I can tell you, that depending on your state...is better to start with the Family Law lawyer since you will need to fix that first to move over the other one.

One has to be very careful here, because if there is plenty of time, getting the family law issues sorted (or significantly under way) is obviously a good thing to do from a practical perspective, but if the 2 year conditional status is nearly expired, it's crucial that the I-751 is filed in time since status lapses automatically on the expiry of the 2 year green card unless an I-751 has been filed. And it can be very difficult, time consuming and expensive to recover that status if it has been lost this way.

It's also important that the immigration and family law attorneys work together, because the way the divorce case is handled and the materials it generates can have an effect on evaluation of the I-751 in self-petitioning cases. It could be hard to claim abuse in an I-751 if there is nothing but sweetness and light reflected in the family law case!

The USCIS is aware that there are sometimes issues in marriage cases meaning the spouses are uncooperative, so it's not unusual to find a self-petitioned I-751 where there are outstanding family law matters left to resolve.

If you are at the stage where you are a conditional permanent resident, and now need to file an I-751 to remove conditional status, then you can file the I-751 on your own, without requiring your wife to sign. In Part 2 (basis for petition) on the form, instead of checking 'a' and filing together, you would check 'd' (if divorced or the marriage otherwise terminated) or whichever of 'e' or 'g' is most applicable. These options are, in effect, your application for waiver of the joint filing requirement on the basis of having been subject to cruelty or violence or if claiming that removal from the country would create great hardship.

It would be wise in this situation to discuss the finer details of your case with a good immigration attorney, because much can depend on the small details, and the choice of which of the waiver types ('e' or 'g') you pick. For example, claiming cruelty and violence would usually require some evidential support of specific incidents or common knowledge of conditions in your home to which others could testify and provide evidence to support. It would also be a slightly higher bar to meet since it is typically women who suffer this rather than men, and while the USCIS should not discriminate, individual attitudes amongst officers and their perception of the potential for abuse of men by women may still play a part. On the other hand, if one or two of your children are US citizens, then you may be in a stronger position to argue hardship if you were forced to leave. A good immigration lawyer will be able to advise which is the stronger option to follow, and what evidential support you should look to put together in support of your I-751.

You do not need to be divorced to self-petition, neither do you need to wait until the 3 month window immediately prior to the end of your 2 conditional status period. You will however need evidence to support your waiver.

Congratulations Michelle, well done for both accomplishments, deserving of a lot more than a pat on the back!!

Yes, there is value to questioning the overall structure. I've thought about it myself in the past, but always hit a roadblock somewhere because of things that overlap or otherwise don't categorize neatly into one well-defined place. So presently my mind is in the mode of clarifying the existing structure in the way that structure is presently being used, rather than making bigger changes.

The experience USCIS web site re-structuring also gives me pause. Improvement was needed, but I don't think the changes they made accomplished improvement!

Oh dear, yes the USCIS site restructure was a bad plan badly implemented for the worst of reasons - rather typical of government agencies in other words, but it has certainly rendered a less usable result... and with no great fond memories of the previous version, that takes some doing!

I think for us the problem is rather more simple though, and the only real complexity is that we have tended to broaden out the discussion areas rather than think about how a better result might have been achieved. To be honest, that was our fault in the very early days, because we didn't think there would be the kind of need for subdivisions of procedure so we added extra bits on the edges instead of maybe downwards. Once we started out in that direction it them became easier to carry on than think differently.

It's neatly seen in this very issue, where a Regional discussion area was thought a nice idea so people from different parts of the world could chat about their areas, talk to others about travel and tourism, cultural differences etc. All good. Yet in reality it's not how it ends up being used, because it's become a place for talk about consulates and procedures, yet is all the way over in 'General' alongside Off Topic and Polls, where no-one unfamiliar with what's being said there would think to look for consulate details. As a result, lots of stuff gets moved to the Embassy/Consulate area, requiring a higher degree of monitoring and attention, and other stuff gets left where it risks not being seen by those who might benefit. So what do we do about it? I'm going to guess nothing. People who use it for that don't see a problem, and people who don't don't see what the fuss is about. Who would guess that the best place for a post about an embassy when approaching visa processing is in General>Regional rather than Immigration>Embassy?!

Organization and structure isn't about a personal opinion though, it's about what is or isn't consistent with the objectives and rational enough that it requires the least thought in order to use the resource to best effect. Bad structure helps encourage the training of members into bad practice and then the learning of the same by those who subsequently join and see the patterns of use. Good structure helps the site deliver on it's objectives to the best effect, and in doing so helps positive climate and good practice amongst the user base.

I don't have a monopoly on common sense so I accept that what I'm saying is only one way to look at it - but if we agree that we do need a place for people to talk about specific things like certain embassies, then there's a 'right' place and a 'wrong' place. The right place serves the entire community, the wrong place serves a proportion of it. One thing is for sure though, we shouldn't stop pondering whether we are organized to best effect and implementing changes if we aren't, even if it does require something like the duplication of the current Regional topic areas into sub-area off Embassy/Consulate. It's not a complication to add something where it's needed.

Perhaps if the group titles were revised somewhat to more clearly direct the user it would help to resolve your concerns?

I think that would help, certainly, though I also wonder if there isn't value to questioning the overall structure to some degree.

Oh, and yes, you're right, the pub it is!

I think we can all understand your worries, but at the same time, it's not likely that we'd be able to give you better information than you got from a lawyer, assuming you had discussed enough of the specifics of the case for him/her to reach a conclusion.

It's also important to point out to those with an interest in this sort of case that much depends on all the details, thus a broad and simple description is rarely enough to allow a comprehensively 'one-size fits all' sort of answer.

One can only presume in this instance, that since a 2 month overstay on its own would generally not result in a finding of ineligibility, and that is why the lawyer concluded this would not be a problem. However, if there are other complicating factors not disclosed to the lawyer, it may not remain the appropriate answer. That isn't said with any intent to solicit more detail from the OP, just to underline the fact that on the basis of the information given, there should not be a problem, but if there is anything more to the case, there could yet be.

As I wrote it that post, my observation is that virtually all newbies to VJ have heard those basic terms when the come to VJ.

Perhaps I failed to express the point as I intended, because my concern isn't that those terms aren't 'known' in the general sense, so much as that until users generally begin to get information back from the site, they may have a rather loose 'understanding' of what they mean. That loose understanding can lead to problems, not just in their use of the site but also in their specific cases, and it's not hard to resolve with the right organization and wording.

And in the broader sense again, it seems to me a poor proposition to make any assumptions about what our users know or don't when they arrive here. The more we assume, the more we complain when they fail to meet our expectations, and the harder it is to keep the site focussed.

Yes other topics may end up there but unless we create a million subforums then in some cases some threads will never perfectly fit into a single category.

While it's true that there are always going to be a few threads that don't really have an appropriate place, I think if the starting point is that immigration questions belong in locations where immigration is discussed and non-immigration discussions take place elsewhere, with the two being segregated for the benefit of those participating in one or the other, it does at least help focus the site and get users to the places they need to be in order to get the information they need, asks the questions they need to ask or find the posts they want.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to characterize the notion as 'creating a million sub-forums', which implies it is both unreasonable and impractical, and it also suggests that it's OK to have regional discussions which are not focused on immigration issues but isn't OK to have such a place dedicated to that task. For an immigration help site, that's an odd thought!

If anything the Regional discussions should go and be replaced by sub topics in the Embassy/Consulate area if we can't have both, since this is, after all, primarily intended to be a place to discuss immigration, and by and large the structure and organization of the site should be somewhat biased towards ensuring that function is performed best.

Nothing in the titles I suggested was jargon - it was all appropriate terminology, which should be encouraged. Jargon should be discouraged.

The problem is that until a user knows what an I-129F is, or a K-1 etc, it IS jargon. Yes, also legitimate terminology, but meaningless to people who don't yet know it and thus obstructive to their ability to find the materials they need or the right places to find information or post. If we complain (as we often do) that users don't read before posting questions, some thought at least has to be given to the way we present that information and what language we use.

There are, for example, similar forums where titles are such as 'Family-based immigration', 'Employment based immigration', 'Non-Immigant visas for visitors and business'.... and inside each, there are then sub areas such that inside the family based area there are 'K-1 visas for fiance(e)s', 'K-3 and IR-1/CR-1 Visas for Spouses', 'Adjustment of Status after entry'.... well you get the idea. What this does is lead the user into the appropriate area, then begin to introduce the right terminology in the context of explanation as to purpose, while also allowing targeted materials to be introduced in a way that the user can see the context.

That type of structure allows for both novice and expert user to work within the site without any predefined notions of what they should or shouldn't already know.

eta: sorry Andy...no marmite flavo(u)r that I know of!!!

Oh #######!

I agree. any posters do not present the important details if for no other reason than they have no idea what details may turn out to be important. And my sense is that most VJers don't want to hear about having a discussion of the details with an immigration attorney - some even after a consular officer has hit them upside the head with a 2x4 by refusing their visa application.

I guess my point is that there are only two ways of fairly and 'properly' handling the sort of question we get here (meaning VJ as a whole, not just the K-1 area). We can either make the assumption that there are details not spoken and in the light of our knowledge that even small details can be wholly significant in an otherwise apparently simple case, almost inevitably recommend the poster seek professional help (which has been suggested before of course), OR take the poster at face value and address the issue as specifically described in as far as it can reasonably be addressed in that way.

The question being asked in this thread, for example, is actually a very simple and generic one, not much related to the specifics other than the fiancee's relatives, unlawfully present. So it seems to me quite reasonable to address that broad question with the broadest of answers to underpin the basic principles upon which such a situation is adjudicated. It may not be entirely wise to make the assumption that over and above that, the OP is likely sensible enough to realize that more detail responses addressing his specifics would at least require more detailed information to be given, let alone that since there are relatives unlawfully in the US that a good immigration lawyer would be a wise investment, but I do assume that when I consider the replies I provide. Particularly since, as we all know, it can help greatly when engaging in consultation with an attorney, to have at least a grounding in the issues on which to hold that conversation and to understand and evaluate the advice then given.