Nigel&Meggie

UM...."Simple Assault" is the formal name for a charge in the criminal code, not a comment about the crime.

TV is something I would advice against shipping from UK, main reason they are 220v compared to 110v in US and they UK tvs are for PAL while US are for NTSC format (this is configurable in newer tvs and you can switch).
In general electronics is much cheaper in US compared to UK, he might be able to buy a whole new tv in US for the amount he might end up paying to shipping company.
Fish tank - same as well if his fish tank is something special then he can bring it or it would be cheaper to buy a new one here in US.

10 years? Don't scare him...My mom's petition did not even take a year

Sounds like someone was caught with drugs in their system. They are submitting random testing and hes not allowed to enter for 1 year. Generally means he popped positive for drug useage.

I addressed this earlier. When a flight is anywhere between Hawaii and the continental US, the closest airports are ALL on US territory. There are literally no islands between Hawaii and the US, and both Mexico and Canada are farther away than the US airports on the west coast. Diverting to Canada or Mexico would involve flying hundreds of miles farther. Admittedly it is possible for a Hawaii flight to divert Canada or Mexico [as in, it doesn't violate the laws of physics], but it's a minuscule probability within the already tiny probability of having to divert in the first place.
Hawaii is a safe destination for K-1 entrants to go for a honeymoon, as long as you fly there and stay within 12 miles of the shore. If anything goes wrong with an airplane diversion, buy yourself a lottery ticket [and one for me too ] because you've already beaten the odds.

When you're flying to Alaska from the lower 48, the threat of diversion to Canada is a real (though remote) risk. A flight to or from Alaska that develops mechanical problems will almost certainly divert to Canada, and then a K-1 entrant is in significant trouble.
Hawaii is much safer, OTOH. A flight between SF, LA, or SEATAC and Hawaii does not go anywhere near any other countries. Look at a map of the Pacific. Ain't nothin' twixt Hawaii and North America except a whole lot of blue. Even Mexico, because of how it curves eastward, is way out of the way for a flight in trouble.
I stand by what I wrote earlier - Hawaii is a very safe destination for K-1 entrants to honeymoon at, as long as they are careful not to leave US waters while they're there. Many many K-1 entrants on this board have honeymooned in Hawaii, and I have never heard of a single CBP-related complication occurring. The CBP-related risk that exists with Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands (especially the USVI!) just isn't an issue in Hawaii.
Just make sure a Hawaiian cruise starts on US territory and stays close to the islands, and have fun!

"i mean how would USCIS know about it."
It's people like who you take this approach and have this mentality that makes this process a burden for everyone else wanting to play by the rules. Telling a lie to a government official in the course of them performing their duties is a crime; perhaps they don't know immediately, perhaps they never find out, but if they do, you're screwed. As you should be.

My sentiments exactly... I got married in hawaii with no problem...

What's risky about going to Hawaii without AP??

I forgot to say:
You have to meet once to launch the process, but still you have to try meet as much as you can, cause its really strange to marry sombody without knowing the Max of this person in reality..(contact online are sometimes not good for in the eye of the embassy).
The embassy will question everything in this relationship. You have to make sure that is a bonafide relationship.
Cheers

Hawaii isn't risky, because it is a full state. Flights to and from Hawaii are domestic flights - you never go through a PoE and you don't interact with CBP at all. The only slight risk is if a TSA officer, while looking in your passport to confirm your identity, gets confused by the visa and I-94 and calls an immigration officer over, and even that is not a problem, since the immigration officer will be able to tell (assuming the I-94 isn't expired) that you are in the country perfectly normally.
Puerto Rico, OTOH, is somewhat more risky. Because it is not a full state, and because it is so easy to get there by boat from other Caribbean countries, passengers returning from Puerto Rico usually do have to go through the Customs and Immigration PoE at the airport when they get back to the mainland US. In that situation a K-1 entrant may be asked to prove they did not leave the US while in Puerto Rico. Not usually a problem, the vast majority of the time, but somewhat more stressful, with a small element of risk.
[Hawaii is way nicer than Puerto Rico, by all accounts, anyways.]

What, is Hawaii no longer part of the United States??
Going to Hawaii is not "leaving the US".

What's risky about going to Hawaii without AP??

Maybe the Sound of Silence is the reply we expected, Anyways over to you Peggy

We were in exactly the same situation! I managed to get a copy of her new contract to take with me just in case, and I was going to tell them the truth, but luckily London don't ask many questions so you'll probably find it will be fine. All they asked me was what she does for a living, so I told them her job title but mentioned nothing about who she worked for. They were completely fine with this and no other questions were asked about her job. I answered the question truthfully, but just didn't offer more information than what was required.
You'll probably find they won't dig too deep, the London interview is very straight forward. And even if they do ask, people change jobs, I'm sure it won't be a problem.

I think a lot of people here give advice on K1 because either they are unfamiliar OR because they feel that since they had to wait everyone else has to wait. People that suggest marrying and adjusting status here are absolutely right. Tim/Mav is absolutely wrong on all the points.

It appears to me she only decided that because she is unfamiliar with the processes and and is getting misinformation here.
All people should be fully informed before they make their decisions. The OP has a few options right now, and I think we can all agree the OP should make their own decision after being informed of the processes and determine what is best for them and their circumstances.

To the OP - because you asked this question in the K-1 forum, you will get people saying that you should do K-1 (because that is what they are doing and that is what they are familiar with). Unfortunately, some of the posters here are not familiar with the rules and just are giving you scare tactics. As Anh map said, you can marry in the US now and stay here without going home, by filing for "adjustment of status." You can do this because you did not plan to get married and stay here when you came here. The US recognizes that in some cases it is overly bureaucratic to force people to go home to do consular processing. If you went home you would have to wait there for 8+ months, and might not be able to visit because you have already been here for 6 months this year. I personally, don't think that is worth it to fulfill an imaginary imperative that it's the "right way." From what you post here about your circumstances, filing AOS is also the "right way."
Here is the VJ guide: http://www.visajourney.com/content/i130guide2
Also, check out the AOS forum for more information: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/forum/130-adjustment-of-status-from-work-student-tourist-visas/
Good luck.

You are totally inaccurate here - she states she comes to see fiance - 100% legal. Nothing wrong with intent to meet someone (quote obvious she did not come to meet Statue of Liberty) either. USCIS will not open any can of worms - why would it ? Again, not sure when you read OP came here with intent to marry ? And to make it even more funny, intent to marry would be 100% legal too as long as she will not intend to stay. It is the immigration intent at the entry time that is not legal.

Why do you assume she lied ? She may have come with no intent to marry and therefore marriage and AOS on B2 is perfectly legal. Also it is USCIS that needs to prove the intent at the entry time, not the petitioner / beneficiary that need to prove there was no intent.

Tb test and blood test are not required because they were a part of the original medical. CS doesn't need to see proof of that medical. All they need to do is transcribe vaccinations to I-693. If they are not willing to do that without all the extra unnecessary stuff, find another civil surgeon who will know what they are doing.

OP hasn't been back. Bet they found out it WASN'T USCIS and are too embarrassed to admit it.

What new law? Can you provide a link? I don't believe that sorry. Because otherwise tourists can't get married here and Vegas would lose a LOT of money

Here is the link on the guide for obtaining SSN: http://www.visajourney.com/content/ssn
Make sure you print out the document they are talking about and take it with you to the SSN local office.
Apparently, sometimes, the SSN personnel are not aware that K-1 visa holders are eligible.

In my opinion I wouldn't have purchase the ticket until she got her visa in hand because anything can go wrong. I am not saying it could go wrong but anything is possible with the visa process.