K1 visa after divorce
Apr 18th 2007, 10:02 am
#16
MODERATOR
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 58,687
Re: K1 visa after divorce
Thanks again all.
Alaska doesn't have any regulations on remarrying...but apparently it's too cold for my lass! Alabama does have regulations about marrying in another state just to get round the regulations, though I am somewhat suspect of the level of enforcement.
All in all, it's probably not something I am willing to try to get round in case it causes further and unforseen complications further down the line - I expect we will wait the extra 60 days.
Alaska doesn't have any regulations on remarrying...but apparently it's too cold for my lass! Alabama does have regulations about marrying in another state just to get round the regulations, though I am somewhat suspect of the level of enforcement.
All in all, it's probably not something I am willing to try to get round in case it causes further and unforseen complications further down the line - I expect we will wait the extra 60 days.
Rene
Apr 19th 2007, 12:52 am
#17
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,475
Re: K1 visa after divorce
Originally Posted by [email protected]
On Apr 18, 9:15 am, TKO <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Since the I-129F petition can not be filed until both parties are free
> > to marry... you can *not* start the process until that happens. You
> > will have to wait the 60 days.
>
> > Ian
>
> Okay thanks, I expect this is the case.
>
> On filing the K1, USCIS states: "You and your fiancé(e) must be free
> to marry. This means that both of you are unmarried, or that any
> previous marriages have ended through divorce, annulment or death.
>
> I suppose individual state rules have to be added to the qualification
> of what "free to marry" means.
>
> Ach well, was hoping to shave off a couple of months.
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
According to the USCIS form, you can file the I-129F.
USCIS tells you that you can file, so go ahead. USCIS already have
enough rules, you really don't need to add your own rules on top of
that.
Not to mention that chances are good that you are already free to
marry within that 60 days window - somewhere in the US - just not
necessarly in Alabama.
They haven't comed up with a regulation that prevents K1 visa holders
from getting married in Las Vegas. Again, if USCIS tells you something
(in writing on an official form) and you like it - don't second guess
it.
I really don't see where the problem would be.
I am convinced that the paper-pusher in Texas who will approve your
I-129F doesn't even know all the state rules and regulations
surrounding marriage in the 13 states he is covering - he works for
the great Department of Homeland Security and as such follows federal
rules and regulations
> > Since the I-129F petition can not be filed until both parties are free
> > to marry... you can *not* start the process until that happens. You
> > will have to wait the 60 days.
>
> > Ian
>
> Okay thanks, I expect this is the case.
>
> On filing the K1, USCIS states: "You and your fiancé(e) must be free
> to marry. This means that both of you are unmarried, or that any
> previous marriages have ended through divorce, annulment or death.
>
> I suppose individual state rules have to be added to the qualification
> of what "free to marry" means.
>
> Ach well, was hoping to shave off a couple of months.
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
According to the USCIS form, you can file the I-129F.
USCIS tells you that you can file, so go ahead. USCIS already have
enough rules, you really don't need to add your own rules on top of
that.
Not to mention that chances are good that you are already free to
marry within that 60 days window - somewhere in the US - just not
necessarly in Alabama.
They haven't comed up with a regulation that prevents K1 visa holders
from getting married in Las Vegas. Again, if USCIS tells you something
(in writing on an official form) and you like it - don't second guess
it.
I really don't see where the problem would be.
I am convinced that the paper-pusher in Texas who will approve your
I-129F doesn't even know all the state rules and regulations
surrounding marriage in the 13 states he is covering - he works for
the great Department of Homeland Security and as such follows federal
rules and regulations
Apr 20th 2007, 7:43 pm
#18
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 44
Re: K1 visa after divorce
It's correct that it will be best to wait the additional 60 days. I believe Wisconsin also has this same restriction (can't remember if it's 60 days or 30, though).
In their case, a marriage in Las Vegas was being planned before the time limit and they were told that Wisconsin would not recognize a marriage that took place in another state in an attempt to circumvent the time required to wait for a remarriage.
Best wishes and good luck.
In their case, a marriage in Las Vegas was being planned before the time limit and they were told that Wisconsin would not recognize a marriage that took place in another state in an attempt to circumvent the time required to wait for a remarriage.
Best wishes and good luck.
Apr 21st 2007, 9:13 am
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: K1 visa after divorce
On Apr 21, 3:43 am, istoleabloke <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > What you are failing to note is that the divorce decree must be final.
> > The decree will state that marriage is not possible until 60 days
> > after its issuance and this, and only this, is what makes it possible
> > for her to file the I-129F for the fiancee visa. The USCIS does not
> > care one whit that she can cross a state line to remarry. It is the
> > decree itself which is tanamount to her eligibility to marry.
>
> It's correct that it will be best to wait the additional 60 days. I
> believe Wisconsin also has this same restriction (can't remember if it's
> 60 days or 30, though).
>
> In their case, a marriage in Las Vegas was being planned before the time
> limit and they were told that Wisconsin would not recognize a marriage
> that took place in another state in an attempt to circumvent the time
> required to wait for a remarriage.
>
> Best wishes and good luck.
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
Isn't there a federal law stating that a decision make by a state has
to be recognized by every other 49 states?
Are you saying that gay marriages in Massachusetts are only valid in
that state?
wrote:
> > What you are failing to note is that the divorce decree must be final.
> > The decree will state that marriage is not possible until 60 days
> > after its issuance and this, and only this, is what makes it possible
> > for her to file the I-129F for the fiancee visa. The USCIS does not
> > care one whit that she can cross a state line to remarry. It is the
> > decree itself which is tanamount to her eligibility to marry.
>
> It's correct that it will be best to wait the additional 60 days. I
> believe Wisconsin also has this same restriction (can't remember if it's
> 60 days or 30, though).
>
> In their case, a marriage in Las Vegas was being planned before the time
> limit and they were told that Wisconsin would not recognize a marriage
> that took place in another state in an attempt to circumvent the time
> required to wait for a remarriage.
>
> Best wishes and good luck.
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com
Isn't there a federal law stating that a decision make by a state has
to be recognized by every other 49 states?
Are you saying that gay marriages in Massachusetts are only valid in
that state?
Apr 21st 2007, 11:10 am
#20
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
Re: K1 visa after divorce
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Are you saying that gay marriages in Massachusetts are only valid in that state?
I like Frank Caliendo's take on all this. Impersonating Dubya, he says... "I have nothing against gay marriage... as long as it's a gay man marrying a gay woman!"
Ian
Apr 21st 2007, 11:45 am
#21
I'm back!
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 4,316
Re: K1 visa after divorce
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Isn't there a federal law stating that a decision make by a state has
to be recognized by every other 49 states?
to be recognized by every other 49 states?
~ Jenney
Apr 21st 2007, 1:04 pm
#22
Account Closed
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
Re: K1 visa after divorce
I don't know that it's federal law, but many (if not most) states will respect the laws of the other 49 sister states. I'm not sure it's codified anywhere though... still, like you, I'd be interested in knowing how it all works.
Ian
Ian
Apr 22nd 2007, 9:07 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: K1 visa after divorce
On Apr 21, 7:45 pm, Jenney & Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> > Isn't there a federal law stating that a decision make by a state has
> > to be recognized by every other 49 states?
>
> > Are you saying that gay marriages in Massachusetts are only valid in
> > that state?
>
> Um, where did you hear/read that? Seriously, I'm really curious.
>
> ~ Jenney
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I unfortunately don't know where I first heard it. I always assumed
that federal law stated that a decision make by a state has to be
recognized by every other 49 states. I always thought that it was a
basic principle that made the United States a country, rather than 50
countries.
I found it weird that it would be weird federal law would allow a
state to not recognize the documents from another state.
You move from one state to another, the new state doesn't recognize
your birth certificate, marriage certificate, driving license (those
are not federal docs.) - I would just find it weird.
I'm sure I heard it somewhere about a decade ago (I don't remember
where), but since then I just assumed that federal laws required every
state to recognize a decision made by any other state.
wrote:
>
> > Isn't there a federal law stating that a decision make by a state has
> > to be recognized by every other 49 states?
>
> > Are you saying that gay marriages in Massachusetts are only valid in
> > that state?
>
> Um, where did you hear/read that? Seriously, I'm really curious.
>
> ~ Jenney
>
> --
> Posted viahttp://britishexpats.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I unfortunately don't know where I first heard it. I always assumed
that federal law stated that a decision make by a state has to be
recognized by every other 49 states. I always thought that it was a
basic principle that made the United States a country, rather than 50
countries.
I found it weird that it would be weird federal law would allow a
state to not recognize the documents from another state.
You move from one state to another, the new state doesn't recognize
your birth certificate, marriage certificate, driving license (those
are not federal docs.) - I would just find it weird.
I'm sure I heard it somewhere about a decade ago (I don't remember
where), but since then I just assumed that federal laws required every
state to recognize a decision made by any other state.
Apr 22nd 2007, 8:07 pm
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: K1 visa after divorce
In article <[email protected] .com>,
<"[email protected]"> wrote:
> I'm sure I heard it somewhere about a decade ago (I don't remember
> where), but since then I just assumed that federal laws required every
> state to recognize a decision made by any other state.
You're thinking of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", but it doesn't
require that they recognize every decision of another state -- a simple
example would be a state pardon for all criminal acts before a certain
date. Such a pardon would only be for those crimes for which a state
had jurisdiction.
The state courts that are refusing to recognize gay marriages in states
where there are laws against them, are making the correct decision.
(On a historical note, refusal to come to this conclusion on the part
of the judges ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sanford case was what made
that such a horrible ruling, well that and the fact that it contributed
to the Civil War).
--
J. Moreno
<"[email protected]"> wrote:
> I'm sure I heard it somewhere about a decade ago (I don't remember
> where), but since then I just assumed that federal laws required every
> state to recognize a decision made by any other state.
You're thinking of the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", but it doesn't
require that they recognize every decision of another state -- a simple
example would be a state pardon for all criminal acts before a certain
date. Such a pardon would only be for those crimes for which a state
had jurisdiction.
The state courts that are refusing to recognize gay marriages in states
where there are laws against them, are making the correct decision.
(On a historical note, refusal to come to this conclusion on the part
of the judges ruling on the Dred Scott v. Sanford case was what made
that such a horrible ruling, well that and the fact that it contributed
to the Civil War).
--
J. Moreno
