Mikkel

Hello,

Searches have brought up inconsistent answers, so I'm posing the question here.

My USC wife and I are currently living with her parents and her brother, with her father filing an I-864A to help my wife meet the requirements for the I-864. The household consists of myself, my wife, her brother, her father, and her mother, and according to the instructions for filling out the household size in the I-864, only myself, my wife, and her father who is filing an I-864A should be counted. Since we're assuming that the income stated on her father's I-864A must be applied in consideration of his household size, how do we account for my wife's mother and brother?

Look at this thread.

OP is concerned about securing a visitor visa for her fiancé so they can spend time together and make sure they'll be as compatible in person as they are long-distance. Traveling to Pakistan is dangerous for her, and his chances of getting a US tourist visa are slim.

What's the advice she's mainly being given? "Just do a K-1 and see how it goes".

Without making any judgment calls on her particular case, which is certainly complicated, and which strikes me as much more serious than "I kinda like this person, let's see how it goes", if more people went this route, especially with the added incentive of an extended "getting to know you" period, I believe the number applications would increase dramatically, with an inevitable increase in processing times as a result. If the fiancé visa de facto becomes a "boyfriend/girlfriend" tourist visa, many more people will opt for it.

I can't agree with you here. The process for obtaining a K-1 visa being as extensive, exhausting and relatively expensive as it is, I really don't see how any significant number of people would use a 180-day K-1 visa as a "boyfriend/girlfriend" visa, rather than simply visiting multiple times on 90-day B-2 or VWP visits. Particularly considering the added scrutiny of having a previously "failed" K-1, should the couple eventually wish to marry and settle in the U.S.

In the time that it takes to obtain a K-1 visa these days, a "boyfriend/girlfriend" could enjoy two 90 day stays, incurring fewer fees, and much, much less scrutiny with B-2 or VWP than would be the case with a 180-day K1.

We're both speculating, though.

And the point I'm trying to make is that there's no threshold for when one "really" knows what married life, either at home or abroad, is going to be like. You can get a feel for the other person's culture. You can spend time with them. You can spend time in each other's country. And it still won't be enough. At some point, you have to say "I'm ready for this adventure", and do it. Man, I've known my wife for seven years. I've known her family just as long. I know her culture inside and out, and she does mine. We have lived together before and after marriage. And knowing that I will be uprooting my entire life shortly, to be in a foreign country, is still intimidating. In the end, it comes down to being able to honestly tell yourself that you've made the choice that will bring you the most happiness. The rest is workable.

I don't think we're going to agree on this. I don't believe that people can "honestly tell themselves that they've made the choice that will bring them the most happiness" when there are so many aspects of the choice that will not become apparent or evident before the choice is made.

Look, I wish it were easier for partners to visit each other. It would certainly have made our journey a lot easier. But the potential for abuse is just too great. And people are already dealing with all-too-long waiting periods because of the sheer amount of petitions out there. Modifying the existing K-1 visa to basically be a "let's see how it goes" tourist visa would mean the system would be even more swamped than it already is.

I find that labeling it a "let's see how it goes" visa is derisive of the people who have a genuine intent to marry, but are unsure of how the move will affect them. It's a genuine, valid concern that cannot simply be dismissed as such. I fail to see how there is more potential for abuse on a 180-day K-1 visa than there is on a 90-day K-1 visa. Similarly, I fail to see how a 180-day K-1 visa would noticeably increase processing times for K-1 visas.

Mikkel, the parody in your signature is fantastic! Is that yours, or is it a quote from somewhere else?

Thank you! It is my own.

Then do your best to work out what would happen before going down the immigration road. I don't mean to sound like it's the easiest thing in the world, and certainly not the cheapest, but if it's that serious of a concern that a person's worried they might not want to marry after being granted the visa? Then work out the issue beforehand.

The point I'm trying to make is that the issues that cause separation often are issues that cannot be dealt with beforehand. I'm not proposing that this should benefit people who are worried that they might not want to marry, but rather that it should benefit people who are intent on marriage, but have absolutely no idea how they will react to the massive change that they're going to undergo. Intent is never impervious to practical realities.

Given that some people see nothing wrong with taking the 90-day marriage window as a chance to make a final decision, it is a two-way street. Think of that this means for the would-be immigrant who's given up employment and housing to go join their SO. What are they to do if they're "shipped back" by a cold-footed SO?

I think we're talking beside each other. In the specific situation where a temporarily relocating U.S. citizen for whatever reason wishes to call off the engagement and go home, yes, they would be in the same situation as a foreign fiancé(e) going through a similar scenario. If, however, the marriage works, then your suggestion for the U.S. citizen to relocate to the beneficiary's locale pending certainty would leave the vast majority of the people applying for K-1 visas financially ruined, perhaps even unable to sponsor an affidavit of support. This is why your suggestion isn't an option for most applicants.

Same goes for the "preview" of spending 90 days together on a K-1, with the alien unable to work, drive, and sometimes even just communicate, and thus unable to really get a feel for what their new life would be like.

That is why the poster of this thread proposes an extension to those 90 days.

Even several short holidays together would do a lot towards helping both partners figure their feelings out.

Often the issue isn't with feelings towards each other, it's with what happens when one party changes their life upside down, and both parties experience a part of their relationship that they've never experienced before.

The alien is giving up everything to go be with their SO in the States. The foreign fiancé is giving up their job, home, and family. Even if they come from the poorest, most warn-torn country in the world and getting to the US will be nothing but an improvement in their quality of life, roots are roots. It's a two-way street.

I think you misunderstand me. It most certainly is not a two-way street if the USC relocates to live with the beneficiary prior to settling down in the U.S., which is what you suggested. It simply is not financially viable for most people.

Maybe the long-distance courtship should last longer. Not a true substitute for living together, but a damn sight better than "we've spoken on Skype with an interpreter by her side a few times, how do I bring her over?"

Certainly, but it is still a damn sight short of living together in marriage.

For those who say they need more than 90 days of living together before they can be sure... Why not do it in their SO's home country? Sure, the US is a tough country to get visas to, if you're not Canadian or qualify under the VWP, but American citizens can travel visa-free to most countries. Nothing stopping ya, y'know?

There are plenty of factors stopping people from doing this. Not everyone can afford such an extended vacation, and not everyone are residents of countries in which salaries are high enough to support two people, let alone save up enough for two people who are going to land in the U.S. with little to their names to get by with.

Most of the Canadians use Custom House. The UK'ers use XE. There is no charge for electronic transfers and the exchange rates are far better than you will receive through a regular financial institution.

I see this a lot, but I can't find any information at all about their rates. I have a hard time believing that they can offer a better rate than my bank.

As above. Airlines sometimes have minimum connection times - and it is usually 2 hours.

The minimum connection times vary by airline and airport. They're set individually per airport, and are often different from airline to airline. For international->domestic connections in major U.S. airports, the minimum connection time is typically between an hour and an hour and a half. Any connection on a ticket booked directly through an airline will be a legal connection, and if you end up missing your flight due to delays, they're obligated to accommodate you on a later flight.

Echoing the previous posters, it's unlikely that you'll get into trouble doing it just once. Be aware, though, that according to the contract of carriage of your airline, they /can/ choose to charge you the fare difference between your round trip ticket, and a one-way ticket on the same flight, and that the one-way ticket price considered is the price in effect on the day of departure, which is commonly very high. You should be able to get away with it, but be aware that they reserve the right to go to extremes.

I bet NO ONE can solve the mystery why a one-way ticket is more expensive than RT. I mean, you are traveling half as much distance, so it makes sense the one-way ticket should cost half as much. Maybe the airlines just haven't figured this out yet.

Oh, they have it figured out. One-way tickets are more expensive than round trip tickets on legacy carriers for the same reason as why flexible tickets are more expensive than fixed tickets. One-way and flexible tickets are typically booked in the same fare classes, with the same allowances and restrictions, and are commonly bought by corporate and other business travellers, who have larger budgets at their disposal. This is also why quite a few airlines serving strictly leisure destinations, or traditionally serving leisure travellers will issue one-way tickets at half the price of round trip tickets. For transatlantic travel, Icelandair is a good example of this.

well i own few lounges and bistros. yes my girls live off of tips and there are time they add to table automatic, because some people do not ever tip. and i have no problem with this. they tell me and i approve it. so pay attention to your bill

How can you condone billing your customers amounts exceeding the advertised prices? That seems tantamount to fraud in my view.

I know I'm a few months late on this but I have to say as a Hairstylist, you should definitely tip 15% to 20%, we make less per hour then the person who brought your food and have less volume of customers per hour. If you feel that you and your stylist understand each other and they did everything in there power to create what you want or are working towards it and you feel great walking out, they deserve more then the $6 or $9 per hour we get.

Then how about asking for a raise?

While it depends on how much you're transferring, you'll almost always find bank transfers to be the easiest and cheapest option.

Most European banks, including my own, carry out currency exchanges in connection with international transfers at trading rates established by the institutions, and these are typically at or very close to the daily market prices published by the respective national banks. These rates are very significantly better than rates published by regular commercial foreign exchange traders. I'll give you an example taking basis in my transaction fees for transfering DKK 150,000 to an account in the U.S.

Bank transfer:

Effective bank exchange rate - DKK 100 = USD $19.194

IBT transaction fee - DKK 100

U.S. currency received (1,500 * 19.194 =) USD $28,791

Or, with the best current commercial foreign exchange rate I could find:

Forex trader exchange rate - DKK 100 = USD $18.795

No transaction fee - DKK 0

U.S. currency received (1,500 * 18.795 =) USD $28,192.50

The bank transfer in this scenario is therefore (USD $28,791 - USD $28,192.50 =) USD $598.50 cheaper. Of course, your rates /will/ vary, and you may find a really good deal somewhere, but as a rule, you're often way better off with a bank transfer unless you're just transferring a few hundred dollars.

I just had a struggle with H1N1. The influenza symptoms are extraordinarily uncomfortable, but they subsided fairly rapidly for me. The most annoying part was spending more than a week away from work.

I wasn't offered the vaccine, and I probably wouldn't have accepted it either. Influenza vaccines always get me sick, so I'd rather go without and at least have a chance of staying healthy.

I'd support, if possible, an option for paying a fee to ensure that your petition is handled within a certain time. Not an "ahead of everyone else" fee, but a "we'll have it done no later than this date" fee. I'd certainly have used that during my application.

If two applications/petitions are submitted at the same time and one has that guarantee and the other does not.... then that is effectively putting one ahead of the other.

What it means is that the two cases would be treated precisely the same, unless the guaranteed petition would be processed later than the guaranteed date as a result. Could the guaranteed petition be adjudicated before the unguaranteed petition? Of course. That's the privilege you'd pay for. Would the petition be put "in front of the stack" to be adjudicated before all other petitions, as the poll asks? No.

I'd support, if possible, an option for paying a fee to ensure that your petition is handled within a certain time. Not an "ahead of everyone else" fee, but a "we'll have it done no later than this date" fee. I'd certainly have used that during my application.

I would definitely not suggest getting a sterling mortgage if the income that you're planning on paying it off with is paid to you in dollars. If your mortgage is denominated in a foreign currency then you're incredibly vulnerable to exchange rate fluctuations. This is definitely not the market to consider that course of action in.

Absolutely. I'd like to see an SO visa with the same kind of process as a K-1 visa, with the requirement for adjusting status being the establishment of a joint household. The requirement for maintaining the status could then be renewal every two years or until marriage, proving that the petitioner and beneficiary are maintaining a relationship and a joint household.

Edit: Confucian's idea of extending the 90 days of legal status afforded by the K-1 visa is also a very good idea.

Ireland does it too- you need to prove a relationship of 2+ years though.

I voted "no". I feel if your relationship is not strong enough to get married (at least legally, whatever about religiously), you don't need an immigration visa.

You know, there are those who feel that living together before getting married is a must. You may not agree, but to outright claim that the people who don't follow your path to marriage "don't need" an immigration visa is more than a little silly.

Of course with more information this case turns out to be the complete opposite to how it was first reported. Turns out that she wanted to divorce in Japan and he refused (they lived in Japan for 8 years prior to coming to the US in 08). He basically tricked her into coming to the US by saying he wanted to work on the marriage and she believed him. When she arrived he handed her the divorce papers!

This case is a very bad example of the Hague Convention, in fact if the Hague Convention were applied then Japanese Court rulings would have precedent over American rulings. The reason is that one of the articles states that the contracting country of habitual residence has priority. Habitual residence is defined by the place where the children lived for a minimum of 6 months prior to the filing. Since the filing occurred just after there arrival then Japan is still their habitual residence.

At any rate it turns out this bloke is a true jerk, he set up his ex wife and effectively held her hostage in the US, all the while having an affair and getting married to his high school sweet heart.

His Japanese wife arrives in June 08, divorce papers happen in June and he's remarried by January! Yeah..........just shows you that you have to watch a case play out and not go by initial media reports (which frankly had knowledge of the above but failed to report to give the story a US slant)

Also just responding to the above posts - yes she has a warrant out and is facing felony charges, though I'm not sure the children's status....all I know is that they only have Japanese passports.

Can you source this?

If you'd prefer Seattle to be your POE, you should look into connecting outside of the U.S., rather than making a domestic connection. There are ample opportunities to connect at almost any major European airport. From Oslo, I'd suggest flying Icelandair and connecting in Reykjavik. Oslo->Reykjavik->Seattle can be had for as little as 2,000 NOK one way, and while I've only sampled their new interiors in business class, their economy seating looked remarkably comfortable.

good luck on the trip. IIRC, getting into the international departure terminal is a hassle - as yer ALWAYS deplaning from somewhere else in the airport, with some hassle for getting to the international departure area. Hoe much lag time between flights? one hour, IMO, is not enough - I suggest 2 hours if possible.

I don't know about that. Getting anywhere inside the main terminal is very easy, and even if you're arriving at a T gate at the farthest end of the concourse, getting to E won't take you more than 10-15 minutes. That is, if you can resist the delicious Famous Famiglia pepperoni pizza.

My planned departure date is in the beginning of February, and I had my passport with my visa in it October 10th, so it's not much of an issue for me. I usually buy anywhere from two weeks to a month and a half out, but I'd never consider buying a ticket before having the visa.

I've found PayPal to be infinitely cheaper and easier than any kind of money wiring service, and the fees for Western Union and the like to be completely extortionate. I've sent well above $10,000 USD to my fiancée via PayPal, and I've paid a total of.. let me check.. $40 USD in fees, because I picked the wrong payment type for one transfer. All but that one transfer have been subject to no fees at all.

I'd hate to break up the Finnish posts that most of us don't understand, but I wanted to say that I've added a review of my K-1 experiences at the Copenhagen embassy for those of you who are curious or destined to end up there some day.

The legal definitions vary so widely that you really should just ask the police directly if any previous detention constituted arrest.

Off topic, there's so much retro appeal about being detained on charges of phreaking. Gold star for you.

A key ally in past immigration fights, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said it would not support a measure that has a same-sex provision.

Writing to Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., the organization said the provision would "erode the institution of marriage and family by according marriage-like immigration benefits to same sex relationships."

These extremists aren't even trying to come up with defensible arguments any more. I'm sure the granting of relationship-based immigration possibilities to same-sex couples is splitting up heterosexual marriages everywhere.

These people are criminally inept.