K1 Visa Denied and maybe getting worse!
Dec 11th 2001, 11:46 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> Just had k1 fiance visa denied (from an asian country) because of moral turpitude,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> they discovered she had previously worked in a bar for a few months.[/usenetquote2]
I know I will seem like an idiot here, so please forgive me.
But are we expected to believe the US will not allow this women into the States
because she has worked in a bar? I assume they are implying she had other motives for
working there apart from selling drinks.
It beggars belief to me, that a Visa would be denied because of this. I mean, is
there any real proof that anything other than alcohol was being served by this woman?
It's the US Consulate that grants the Visa and whilst some Countries might assume the
worst, I would have thought the US Consulate would not have batted an eyelid. By that
I mean, I would think they would be far more worried about other misdemeanors. Not
simply someone working in a bar and automatically assuming other motives.
Of course, I know I must be wrong in my thinking on this one. But it does seem
ludicrous to me.
Forgive me, but is this the whole story? Because it's not really making any sense to
me. In all honesty, I can't believe they would simply deny a Visa because she worked
in a bar. Unless of course, there really is some other reason that we do not know of.
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> Just had k1 fiance visa denied (from an asian country) because of moral turpitude,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> they discovered she had previously worked in a bar for a few months.[/usenetquote2]
I know I will seem like an idiot here, so please forgive me.
But are we expected to believe the US will not allow this women into the States
because she has worked in a bar? I assume they are implying she had other motives for
working there apart from selling drinks.
It beggars belief to me, that a Visa would be denied because of this. I mean, is
there any real proof that anything other than alcohol was being served by this woman?
It's the US Consulate that grants the Visa and whilst some Countries might assume the
worst, I would have thought the US Consulate would not have batted an eyelid. By that
I mean, I would think they would be far more worried about other misdemeanors. Not
simply someone working in a bar and automatically assuming other motives.
Of course, I know I must be wrong in my thinking on this one. But it does seem
ludicrous to me.
Forgive me, but is this the whole story? Because it's not really making any sense to
me. In all honesty, I can't believe they would simply deny a Visa because she worked
in a bar. Unless of course, there really is some other reason that we do not know of.
Dec 12th 2001, 12:42 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Please read the threads fully. If you had done you would have found that "working in
a bar" in this country is a euphemism for prostitution.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
[usenetquote2]> >doc wrote:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> Just had k1 fiance visa denied (from an asian country) because of moral[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> turpitude, they discovered she had previously worked in a bar for a few months.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
States
>
>
>
>
mean,
>
by
>
>
>
>
batted
>
about
>
>
>
>
seem
>
>
>
any
>
>
>
a bar" in this country is a euphemism for prostitution.
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
[usenetquote2]> >doc wrote:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> Just had k1 fiance visa denied (from an asian country) because of moral[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> turpitude, they discovered she had previously worked in a bar for a few months.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
States
>
>
>
>
mean,
>
by
>
>
>
>
batted
>
about
>
>
>
>
seem
>
>
>
any
>
>
>
Dec 12th 2001, 12:52 am
#3
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
X,
There are 2 Asian countries, and 1 South American country, I know of that are well known for their 'bargirls'. The women are prostitutes. Not necessarily prostitutes who are directly comparable to prostitutes as we know them here in North America or western Europe, on the whole they might better be described as semi-professional or professional girlfriends, but there's no getting around the fact that they are prostitutes as far as US Immigration Law is concerned.
In the Asian country that I am familiar with, because I lived and worked there for over 2 year, and my wife is from there, saying that a girl works in a bar is unambiguously identifying her as a prostitute.
Regards, JEff
There are 2 Asian countries, and 1 South American country, I know of that are well known for their 'bargirls'. The women are prostitutes. Not necessarily prostitutes who are directly comparable to prostitutes as we know them here in North America or western Europe, on the whole they might better be described as semi-professional or professional girlfriends, but there's no getting around the fact that they are prostitutes as far as US Immigration Law is concerned.
In the Asian country that I am familiar with, because I lived and worked there for over 2 year, and my wife is from there, saying that a girl works in a bar is unambiguously identifying her as a prostitute.
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Xtrynytix
>
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> Just had k1 fiance visa denied (from an asian country) because of moral turpitude,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> they discovered she had previously worked in a bar for a few months.[/usenetquote2]
I know I will seem like an idiot here, so please forgive me.
But are we expected to believe the US will not allow this women into the States
because she has worked in a bar? I assume they are implying she had other motives for
working there apart from selling drinks.
It beggars belief to me, that a Visa would be denied because of this. I mean, is
there any real proof that anything other than alcohol was being served by this woman?
It's the US Consulate that grants the Visa and whilst some Countries might assume the
worst, I would have thought the US Consulate would not have batted an eyelid. By that
I mean, I would think they would be far more worried about other misdemeanors. Not
simply someone working in a bar and automatically assuming other motives.
Of course, I know I must be wrong in my thinking on this one. But it does seem
ludicrous to me.
Forgive me, but is this the whole story? Because it's not really making any sense to
me. In all honesty, I can't believe they would simply deny a Visa because she worked
in a bar. Unless of course, there really is some other reason that we do not know of.
>
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> Just had k1 fiance visa denied (from an asian country) because of moral turpitude,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> they discovered she had previously worked in a bar for a few months.[/usenetquote2]
I know I will seem like an idiot here, so please forgive me.
But are we expected to believe the US will not allow this women into the States
because she has worked in a bar? I assume they are implying she had other motives for
working there apart from selling drinks.
It beggars belief to me, that a Visa would be denied because of this. I mean, is
there any real proof that anything other than alcohol was being served by this woman?
It's the US Consulate that grants the Visa and whilst some Countries might assume the
worst, I would have thought the US Consulate would not have batted an eyelid. By that
I mean, I would think they would be far more worried about other misdemeanors. Not
simply someone working in a bar and automatically assuming other motives.
Of course, I know I must be wrong in my thinking on this one. But it does seem
ludicrous to me.
Forgive me, but is this the whole story? Because it's not really making any sense to
me. In all honesty, I can't believe they would simply deny a Visa because she worked
in a bar. Unless of course, there really is some other reason that we do not know of.
Dec 12th 2001, 2:30 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
I'm sorry, my newsreader went fritzy on me and I only got the last part of the
thread. I'm sorry to have bothered you Andy. I'll try to pay more attention in future
>
By 'this country' I take it you mean the US. Well when I was a student I myself
'worked in a bar'. Now to 'this country' does that automatically make me a
prostitute?
>
>
>
I'm sorry, my newsreader went fritzy on me and I only got the last part of the
thread. I'm sorry to have bothered you Andy. I'll try to pay more attention in future
>
By 'this country' I take it you mean the US. Well when I was a student I myself
'worked in a bar'. Now to 'this country' does that automatically make me a
prostitute?
Dec 12th 2001, 2:32 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank you Jeff for you explanation. It was kind of you to take the trouble to
explain.
)
explain.
)
Dec 13th 2001, 3:56 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
INS clearly states that it doesnt matter if its legal where it happened or not. I
think a more interesting question is what exactly constitutes prostitution. How about
the woman who sleeps with a man after he spends a lot of money on their date that
night? Or after he buys her the proverbial mink coat? Conversely, is the woman a
prostitute if she refuses to sleep with a man because he doesnt spend money on her,
or if she refuses to even date someone because he is poor? Or what about women who
marry men for their money or even their economic potential? Thats a lifetime of sex
for money. I wonder how many of the wives of the politicians/bureaucrats who made
these rules would be ineligible for entry if they were really honest about this.
Making moral judgements about others is tricky and hypocritical at best. At worst it
can ruin peoples lives.
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > If you had done you would have found that "working in a bar" in this country is a[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > euphemism for prostitution.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
think a more interesting question is what exactly constitutes prostitution. How about
the woman who sleeps with a man after he spends a lot of money on their date that
night? Or after he buys her the proverbial mink coat? Conversely, is the woman a
prostitute if she refuses to sleep with a man because he doesnt spend money on her,
or if she refuses to even date someone because he is poor? Or what about women who
marry men for their money or even their economic potential? Thats a lifetime of sex
for money. I wonder how many of the wives of the politicians/bureaucrats who made
these rules would be ineligible for entry if they were really honest about this.
Making moral judgements about others is tricky and hypocritical at best. At worst it
can ruin peoples lives.
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > If you had done you would have found that "working in a bar" in this country is a[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > euphemism for prostitution.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
Dec 13th 2001, 10:01 am
#7
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Doc,
I agree on all points. That's undoubtedly why the DOS and the INS don't make moral judgements, they follow the law as it is written.
I don't know how US law defines prostitution, but I do know that people who fit the definition are not elibgible for visas or immigration unless they can get a waiver.
Regards, JEff
I agree on all points. That's undoubtedly why the DOS and the INS don't make moral judgements, they follow the law as it is written.
I don't know how US law defines prostitution, but I do know that people who fit the definition are not elibgible for visas or immigration unless they can get a waiver.
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Doc
... I
think a more interesting question is what exactly constitutes prostitution. ...
Making moral judgements about others is tricky and hypocritical at best. ...
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > If you had done you would have found that "working in a bar" in this country is a[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > euphemism for prostitution.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
... I
think a more interesting question is what exactly constitutes prostitution. ...
Making moral judgements about others is tricky and hypocritical at best. ...
>
>
[usenetquote2]> > If you had done you would have found that "working in a bar" in this country is a[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > euphemism for prostitution.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
Dec 13th 2001, 8:03 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah but they do make moral judgements. Lawmakers have forced them to do so with the
enactment of such laws which often require interpretation and judgement on the part
of the individual handling the case. And jeff, who makes the yes or no decision about
a waiver? Seems to me that in most instances for most people, being forced to
relocate to a foreign country to be together makes extreme hardship rather easy to
demonstrate. So is the waiver determination not often based upon whether or not the
ins officer was feeling particularly generous that day or not? I dont know, but sure
does seem like a lot of judgement going on to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
this
>
>
>
and
>
also
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
enactment of such laws which often require interpretation and judgement on the part
of the individual handling the case. And jeff, who makes the yes or no decision about
a waiver? Seems to me that in most instances for most people, being forced to
relocate to a foreign country to be together makes extreme hardship rather easy to
demonstrate. So is the waiver determination not often based upon whether or not the
ins officer was feeling particularly generous that day or not? I dont know, but sure
does seem like a lot of judgement going on to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
this
>
>
>
and
>
also
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dec 14th 2001, 1:08 am
#9
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 104
> By 'this country' I take it you mean the US. Well when I
> was a student I myself 'worked in a bar'. Now to 'this
> country' does that automatically make me a prostitute?
Actually, he meant the foreign country where the girl lives.
> was a student I myself 'worked in a bar'. Now to 'this
> country' does that automatically make me a prostitute?
Actually, he meant the foreign country where the girl lives.
Dec 14th 2001, 4:05 am
#10
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,049
Doc,
I'm speaking about the initial decision on a visa application submitted by an admitted prostitute. No judgement required or allowed - application denied.
During the appeal process, deciding on the waiver request, yes judgement does come into play.
Regards, JEff
I'm speaking about the initial decision on a visa application submitted by an admitted prostitute. No judgement required or allowed - application denied.
During the appeal process, deciding on the waiver request, yes judgement does come into play.
Regards, JEff
Originally posted by Doc
Ah but they do make moral judgements. Lawmakers have forced them to do so with the
enactment of such laws which often require interpretation and judgement on the part
of the individual handling the case. And jeff, who makes the yes or no decision about
a waiver? Seems to me that in most instances for most people, being forced to
relocate to a foreign country to be together makes extreme hardship rather easy to
demonstrate. So is the waiver determination not often based upon whether or not the
ins officer was feeling particularly generous that day or not? I dont know, but sure
does seem like a lot of judgement going on to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
this
>
>
>
and
>
also
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ah but they do make moral judgements. Lawmakers have forced them to do so with the
enactment of such laws which often require interpretation and judgement on the part
of the individual handling the case. And jeff, who makes the yes or no decision about
a waiver? Seems to me that in most instances for most people, being forced to
relocate to a foreign country to be together makes extreme hardship rather easy to
demonstrate. So is the waiver determination not often based upon whether or not the
ins officer was feeling particularly generous that day or not? I dont know, but sure
does seem like a lot of judgement going on to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
this
>
>
>
and
>
also
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dec 14th 2001, 4:57 am
#11
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,477
Doc
Your argument regarding what constitutes prostitution has been around a long time. Yes since the beginning of time, both men and women have prostituted themselves for the sake of security, privilege or gain. This type of prostitution is considered socially acceptable and is not legally defined as a misdemeanor judicially. If you were to take it one step further, most interpersonal action is a form of prostitution. One gives something, whether materially or emotionally, to another in exchange for something they want.
The prostitution that the law and INS consider to be a crime offense is the direct selling of one's body for the exchange of money. The prostitute must make a verbal offering of performing certain physical acts for a set amount of money. The bar girls, if their portrayal in films set in the Philipphines and VietNam is correct, shows that yes those bar girls are indeed prostitutes.
I, too, am not judging them as they may not be in this profession out of freedom of choice but because of necessity. However, they are in a profession that the legal system of our country deems a crime.
And yes, the interview process is subjective to the opinion, actions and reactions of the interviewer in many areas. The interviewer is the one that has the final say on whether your marriage is valid or strictly for the sake of a green card. Frankly, I believe that is the way it should be if the couple has provided supposed valid documentation but the interviewer feels that there is more there an meets the eye.
In cases such as your fiancee's, the judgment was not subjective but based on regulations. She was a "bar girl" and that profession is just another name for the world's oldest profession. However, as a USC you are given the opportunity to have this denial overturned. You can do this through a "hardship waiver". Apparently, this is not a difficult waiver to obtain as many have done it before you for various criminal convictions. This tells me that INS knows that the charge of prostitution in those countries is not a serious moral offense but that to clear itself of being accused of being too easy on wives and/or fiancees who have a known past of prostitution, they have to make the original finding but have provided a way to circumvent it.
You knew all this when you got engaged to your fiancee and you knew of her past. That is the reason why you hide her job from INS and why you and she screened your e-mails before submitting them as proof of relationship. Your biggest mistake was in giving the US Consulate any e-mail at all. It is not necessary to do so to prove your ongoing relationship. And if you felt it was, you could have submitted one, two or three not a slew of them.
So if you are going to be angry with anyone, be angry at yourself and not at the INS. They did their job. I job you knew they were going to do if they found out the truth. So why are you finding fault with them?
Rita
Your argument regarding what constitutes prostitution has been around a long time. Yes since the beginning of time, both men and women have prostituted themselves for the sake of security, privilege or gain. This type of prostitution is considered socially acceptable and is not legally defined as a misdemeanor judicially. If you were to take it one step further, most interpersonal action is a form of prostitution. One gives something, whether materially or emotionally, to another in exchange for something they want.
The prostitution that the law and INS consider to be a crime offense is the direct selling of one's body for the exchange of money. The prostitute must make a verbal offering of performing certain physical acts for a set amount of money. The bar girls, if their portrayal in films set in the Philipphines and VietNam is correct, shows that yes those bar girls are indeed prostitutes.
I, too, am not judging them as they may not be in this profession out of freedom of choice but because of necessity. However, they are in a profession that the legal system of our country deems a crime.
And yes, the interview process is subjective to the opinion, actions and reactions of the interviewer in many areas. The interviewer is the one that has the final say on whether your marriage is valid or strictly for the sake of a green card. Frankly, I believe that is the way it should be if the couple has provided supposed valid documentation but the interviewer feels that there is more there an meets the eye.
In cases such as your fiancee's, the judgment was not subjective but based on regulations. She was a "bar girl" and that profession is just another name for the world's oldest profession. However, as a USC you are given the opportunity to have this denial overturned. You can do this through a "hardship waiver". Apparently, this is not a difficult waiver to obtain as many have done it before you for various criminal convictions. This tells me that INS knows that the charge of prostitution in those countries is not a serious moral offense but that to clear itself of being accused of being too easy on wives and/or fiancees who have a known past of prostitution, they have to make the original finding but have provided a way to circumvent it.
You knew all this when you got engaged to your fiancee and you knew of her past. That is the reason why you hide her job from INS and why you and she screened your e-mails before submitting them as proof of relationship. Your biggest mistake was in giving the US Consulate any e-mail at all. It is not necessary to do so to prove your ongoing relationship. And if you felt it was, you could have submitted one, two or three not a slew of them.
So if you are going to be angry with anyone, be angry at yourself and not at the INS. They did their job. I job you knew they were going to do if they found out the truth. So why are you finding fault with them?
Rita
Dec 14th 2001, 10:58 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
In Greece or Turkey (and therefore Cyprus) one might go to a service where one could
get blanched in piping hot steam ( to open the pores and generally loosen up) and
have one's epidermis peeled off by paid torturers. They also do a special dance with
their fingers and sometimes elbows on your back, neck and body. It feels like you had
volunteered yourself into hell. They take any sort of international credit card. You
feel great 30 minutes after gaining liberty. You can also go to a certain south asian
country where skinny girls hold on to bamboo poles tied to the ceiling and walk on
your back as lie prostrate, face down. There is piped in local music and they are
counting the joints in your vertebrae with their toes. You resist giggling. Once
again, Amex, MC, Visa and even Diners Club welcome. It is fine to have one's knots
untied ( or itches scratched) when it happens in certain parts of the body. In
certain other parts, the law prohibits it. It does not really matter whether the law
is based on policies on public health, morality or prudery. The fact remains that the
poster with the issue on hand had conceded that he had goofed with his email copy
submission to the INS. For what it is worth, if a hypothetical INS were to have a
strange requirement (no fiancee under 3 feet tall, for example) but is not actively
investigating or policing it, then woe to any petitioner that volunteers the
information that they do not satisfy that particular requirement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
In Greece or Turkey (and therefore Cyprus) one might go to a service where one could
get blanched in piping hot steam ( to open the pores and generally loosen up) and
have one's epidermis peeled off by paid torturers. They also do a special dance with
their fingers and sometimes elbows on your back, neck and body. It feels like you had
volunteered yourself into hell. They take any sort of international credit card. You
feel great 30 minutes after gaining liberty. You can also go to a certain south asian
country where skinny girls hold on to bamboo poles tied to the ceiling and walk on
your back as lie prostrate, face down. There is piped in local music and they are
counting the joints in your vertebrae with their toes. You resist giggling. Once
again, Amex, MC, Visa and even Diners Club welcome. It is fine to have one's knots
untied ( or itches scratched) when it happens in certain parts of the body. In
certain other parts, the law prohibits it. It does not really matter whether the law
is based on policies on public health, morality or prudery. The fact remains that the
poster with the issue on hand had conceded that he had goofed with his email copy
submission to the INS. For what it is worth, if a hypothetical INS were to have a
strange requirement (no fiancee under 3 feet tall, for example) but is not actively
investigating or policing it, then woe to any petitioner that volunteers the
information that they do not satisfy that particular requirement.
Dec 14th 2001, 5:47 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rete wrote:
>
>
>
To pick a nit: No the interviewer does not have final say on whether their marriage
is valid because at this point they aren't even married (K1 remember). In such cases
the INS has final say at the AOS interview, which hasn't happened yet in this
situation.
>
>
>
I happen to believe that the standard of "there is more there than meets the eye" is
not a valid nor legal standard for the interviewer to make such a sweeping and far
ranging decision that will negatively impact people for a long time. IOW the
interviewer needs to base his decision on facts not speculation. The original poster
was vague about what the interviewer actually saw in those emails. It might be
outright admissions of engaging in prostitution or it might be statements like
"working in a bar" where the bar was a real bar (I assume there are bars there where
prostitution is not happening).
>
>
>
I beg to differ. From all I've read about hardship waivers it's extremely difficult
to get them because extreme hardship must be proven and that is very difficult to do.
Show me cases where hardship waivers were approved. I welcome you to prove me wrong
and I'd love to see your data.
>
>
>
To pick a nit: No the interviewer does not have final say on whether their marriage
is valid because at this point they aren't even married (K1 remember). In such cases
the INS has final say at the AOS interview, which hasn't happened yet in this
situation.
>
>
>
I happen to believe that the standard of "there is more there than meets the eye" is
not a valid nor legal standard for the interviewer to make such a sweeping and far
ranging decision that will negatively impact people for a long time. IOW the
interviewer needs to base his decision on facts not speculation. The original poster
was vague about what the interviewer actually saw in those emails. It might be
outright admissions of engaging in prostitution or it might be statements like
"working in a bar" where the bar was a real bar (I assume there are bars there where
prostitution is not happening).
>
>
>
I beg to differ. From all I've read about hardship waivers it's extremely difficult
to get them because extreme hardship must be proven and that is very difficult to do.
Show me cases where hardship waivers were approved. I welcome you to prove me wrong
and I'd love to see your data.
Dec 15th 2001, 2:45 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:47:33 -0800, Andrew DeFaria <[email protected]> spake:
>
>
>
>
To pick the nit - they are married. Re-read doc's posts.
>
>
>
>
To pick the nit - they are married. Re-read doc's posts.
Dec 15th 2001, 5:34 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
--------------050008040302080809090303
Betastar wrote:
>
>
[usenetquote2]>> To pick a nit: No the interviewer does not have final say on whether their[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> marriage is valid because at this point they aren't even married (K1 remember). In[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> such cases the INS has final say at the AOS interview, which hasn't happened yet[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> in this situation.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
Then they are not filing for a K1. The poster got married after this. Are you saying
that when applying for a I-130 the interviewer at the consulate will judge the
validity of the marriage? (Not that this guy will get an I-130 I'm guessing...)
--------------050008040302080809090303
<html> <head> </head> <body> Betastar wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]"> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:47:33
-0800, Andrew DeFaria<br> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> spake: <blockquote
type="cite">To pick a nit: No the interviewer does not have final say on whether
their marriage is valid because at this point they aren't even married (K1 remember).
In such cases the INS has final say at the AOS interview, which hasn't happened yet
in this situation.<br> </blockquote> <!---->To pick the nit - they are married.
Re-read doc's posts.</blockquote> Then they are not filing for a K1. The poster got
married after this. Are you saying that when applying for a I-130 the interviewer at
the consulate will judge the validity of the marriage? (Not that this guy will get an
I-130 I'm guessing...)<br> </body> </html>
--------------050008040302080809090303--
Betastar wrote:
>
>
[usenetquote2]>> To pick a nit: No the interviewer does not have final say on whether their[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> marriage is valid because at this point they aren't even married (K1 remember). In[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> such cases the INS has final say at the AOS interview, which hasn't happened yet[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> in this situation.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
Then they are not filing for a K1. The poster got married after this. Are you saying
that when applying for a I-130 the interviewer at the consulate will judge the
validity of the marriage? (Not that this guy will get an I-130 I'm guessing...)
--------------050008040302080809090303
<html> <head> </head> <body> Betastar wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:[email protected]"> On Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:47:33
-0800, Andrew DeFaria<br> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> spake: <blockquote
type="cite">To pick a nit: No the interviewer does not have final say on whether
their marriage is valid because at this point they aren't even married (K1 remember).
In such cases the INS has final say at the AOS interview, which hasn't happened yet
in this situation.<br> </blockquote> <!---->To pick the nit - they are married.
Re-read doc's posts.</blockquote> Then they are not filing for a K1. The poster got
married after this. Are you saying that when applying for a I-130 the interviewer at
the consulate will judge the validity of the marriage? (Not that this guy will get an
I-130 I'm guessing...)<br> </body> </html>
--------------050008040302080809090303--
