K-1 went to cr@p and he wants to send her packing is there any way she can stay?

[2tallbill]

she should be glad to return to all that she sacrificed.

PS: Her actions don't match her words, so I wouldn't rush to make a judgement without hearing both side of this situation, regardless of how honest you think she is.

She never said any words on the forum. I summarized what I saw
as her situation.

[Misha]

She entered into the K-1 in good faith and fully intended to marry
him and be happy ever after. She left a good job, her apartment,
her barely an adult son, friends and her entire life and family to
build a future with this man and it has fallen apart.

I can understand the job part, but her apartment as well as her son, her friends and her family should all still be there 

[LAman]

A friend of mine (a woman) met a man in her home city. They spent
quite a bit of time getting to know each other. They filed for a K-1
blah, blah, blah and she is now here in the USA on that visa.

 

Just curious, what is meant by quite a bit of time together? On only one trip? Days??
The more time spent with someone......the better you know them....but only if your eyes are
wide open!!!!

[Jooky]

She never said any words on the forum. I summarized what I saw
as her situation.

I meant her words to you.
 
I know your intentions are good, but sorry, the story you present here doesn't fit. You say she gave up a lot back home to be with this man. This is a rough time for her. It would make sense that she'd want to go back home where she will have the support of her friends and family... unless her primary motivation was a better life in the US.

[ECOCKS]

I meant her words to you.
 
I know your intentions are good, but sorry, the story you present here doesn't fit. You say she gave up a lot back home to be with this man. This is a rough time for her. It would make sense that she'd want to go back home where she will have the support of her friends and family... unless her primary motivation was a better life in the US.

+1

[Muzh]

Let this be a shining example to all the FSUW who are contemplating marrying a man from the US.
 
Run Natasha Run

[OlgaH]

I meant her words to you.
 
I know your intentions are good, but sorry, the story you present here doesn't fit. You say she gave up a lot back home to be with this man. This is a rough time for her. It would make sense that she'd want to go back home where she will have the support of her friends and family... unless her primary motivation was a better life in the US.

+1

+2

[Steamer]

Could this simply be a matter of adjustment disputes for both of them?

[ECOCKS]

Could this simply be a matter of adjustment disputes for both of them?

Actually, it sounds to me like the K1 process did exactly what it was supposed to do, provide a "getting to know you" period in an attempt to avoid becoming more deeply involved in an unhappy relationship through legal and financial entanglements.

Now the woman can return to her home country and continue searching for a loving relationship with her soulmate. At least she has seen a new country, learned about the US paperwork and, hopefully, grown a little wiser in her search for love, happiness and self-fulfillment.

Congratulations mam, you should be happy it turned out this way since the alternative would have meant unhappiness and anguish. Keep looking for love!

[GQBlues]

Actually, it sounds to me like the K1 process did exactly what it was supposed to do, provide a "getting to know you" period in an attempt to avoid becoming more deeply involved in an unhappy relationship through legal and financial entanglements.

Well, not exactly ECOCKS. That's not the intention of the 90-day period.
 
But the bottom line is, marriage didn't take place then really this means there's only one thing legally left to do. Either party have the right not to go through what they 'intended' on doing so they both need to do the right thing and just start over, if desired.

[GoodOlBoy]

......the alternative would have meant unhappiness and anguish. Keep looking for love!

GOB agrees wholeheartedly!
 
It figures that if she has a "barely" adult son (18?), then she is probably in her late 30's.
 
She is still a young lady by most USA standards (except for a few members here that would consider her babuska material  ) , willing to relocate and relatively "unattached".
 
Maybe a good catch for some lucky guy.
 
GOB

[BC]

GOB agrees wholeheartedly!
 
It figures that if she has a "barely" adult son (18?), then she is probably in her late 30's.
 
She is still a relatively young lady by most USA standards (except for a few members here that would consider her babuska material  ) and relatively "unattached".
 
Maybe a good catch for some lucky guy.
 
GOB

Then why no K2?

In any case would be interesting to know who is supporting this woman financially... was she simply dropped on the next corner?

Of course the honorable thing to do is make sure she has a ticket home and enough funds for a few months to establish herself again.

My mother told me 'if you take something, put it back where it came from unless it's your worn underwear'.

[ECOCKS]

Hmmm, well I think they put that 90 day period there for a reason. They could have required marriage prior to entering the United States or in a shorter period of time. So, TO ME, the period is to be sure each party knows what they are getting into, where they are moving to, the peculiarities of a new cultural environment and so on. 

[GoodOlBoy]

Then why no K2?

Just a "guess".
Her Son is an adult, "barely" or not.
He may have decided that "the land of milk and honey" wasn't for him.
Heck, GOB went into the Corps right after his 17th birthday (parents signature).
 
GOB

[BC]

Hmmm, well I think they put that 90 day period there for a reason. They could have required marriage prior to entering the United States or in a shorter period of time. So, TO ME, the period is to be sure each party knows what they are getting into, where they are moving to, the peculiarities of a new cultural environment and so on.

As I understand it the 90 day window IS TO GET MARRIED and not to test the waters..... as in an already committed relationship vs the fabled 'trial or test period'

Misuse leads to abuse.....

[ECOCKS]

You have your opinion, I (and others) have mine.

[BC]

Heck, GOB went into the Corps right after his 17th birthday (parents signature).
 
GOB

Ooh-rah!

You guys used to chase skunks through the gullies at Redstone Arsenal.....  The other's (N,AF,A) bought beer, lawn chairs and watched the show.. LOL

Luckily we did not live in the same hut as the Corps.

[Boethius]

You have your opinion, I (and others) have mine.

I think the K-1 visa was modeled on the Canadian fiance visa (which has since been abolished), and the initial reason for introducing it was to allow the fiance a little time to adjust to America.  If a fiance found he/she could not adjust to the U.S. and living without family, he/she could return.  This was due to experiences with the K-3. 

Initially, there was no requirement a K-1 applicant marry his/her American sponsor, likely because this was set up assuming the parties knew one another.  The requirement to marry one's sponsor was added to avoid fraud.

Ninety days is not much time to get to know someone.

[Faux Pas]

Hmmm, well I think they put that 90 day period there for a reason. They could have required marriage prior to entering the United States or in a shorter period of time. So, TO ME, the period is to be sure each party knows what they are getting into, where they are moving to, the peculiarities of a new cultural environment and so on.

Included in the K-1 packet is an affidavit "Intent to Marry". The 90 days is only a deadline for that intended marriage and not IMHO and trial period. Of course anyone is free to see it as they see fit. I do not think the 90 days is defined anywhere other than the deadline to be married or returned

[BC]

I think the K-1 visa was modeled on the Canadian fiance visa (which has since been abolished), and the initial reason for introducing it was to allow the fiance a little time to adjust to America.  If a fiance found he/she could not adjust to the U.S. and living without family, he/she could return.  This was due to experiences with the K-3. 

Initially, there was no requirement a K-1 applicant marry his/her American sponsor, likely because this was set up assuming the parties knew one another.  The requirement to marry one's sponsor was added to avoid fraud.

Ninety days is not much time to get to know someone.

IIRC and I certainly could be wrong, the K process is an offshoot of the War Brides Act, maybe a liberalization thereof to allow marriage in the US which the USC's family could attend.  Previously think it only allowed an easy immigration path for GI's already married overseas.

The provisions of the War Brides Act were extended and amended by the Alien Fiancées and Fiancés Act of 1946 and the Soldier Brides Acts of 1946 and 1947.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Brides_Act

SUMMARY

The G.I. fiancée act was devised to expedite the entrance of foreign-born fiancées of members of the U.S Armed Forces that served in WWII. They were allowed to enter as a nonimmigrant temporary visitor for three months on a passport visa, but were required to provide proof of a valid marriage within that time frame. If they were not married with in the three months, then they had to leave or else face deportation. Prospective U.S. citizen spouses had to provide a bond to the Commissioner of Immigration to cover the alien’s deportation fees should the need arise. With sufficient proof of a valid marriage the bond was cancelled, other wise the money was forfeited and the alien was deported.

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/1946_alien_fiancees_and_fiances_act.html

[ECOCKS]

Included in the K-1 packet is an affidavit "Intent to Marry". The 90 days is only a deadline for that intended marriage and not IMHO and trial period. Of course anyone is free to see it as they see fit. I do not think the 90 days is defined anywhere other than the deadline to be married or returned

Ok, I'll back oars a bit and concede overstatement.

Actually, it sounds to me like the K1 process did exactly what it was supposed to do [from the woman's perspective, IMO], provide a "getting to know you" period in an attempt to avoid becoming more deeply involved in an unhappy relationship[/lifestyle] through [cultural,] legal and financial entanglements.

Yes, FP is 100% correct that, in theory, the relationship should be established beyond doubt to the CO's in the originating country. Still, the law could have required marriage before entry or in a shorter (or even longer) period of time. Simply, from what is said, the couple in question fell apart prior to the event. Isn't this a relief?

In fact, since we're going to approach this from a legalistic angle (rather than the rescue fair damsel in distress perspective) it is required that she return to her home country and continue her search for...well, whatever she was searching for.

While I most emphatically do not regard the 90 days as a "trial period" for the citizen spouse, it is handy for those spouses who have never been to the country which will be their new home and have only had their fiance's descriptions as to what they will encounter in terms of lifestyle and "culture".

Get married on your first day ashore in the new world or use it to get to know your intended and your new environment better, to each their own.

[Boethius]

Thanks, BC.

Ah, I understand what you're saying now, Ed.  I agree with you, de facto, the K-1 is indeed used as a "getting to know you" period, even if that is not its intent.

[BC]

Yes, FP is 100% correct that, in theory, the relationship should be established beyond doubt to the CO's in the originating country. Still, the law could have required marriage before entry or in a shorter (or even longer) period of time.

Isn't that the challenge Canadian citizens now face? IIRC something like a 1 year period?

I think the K-1 visa was modeled on the Canadian fiance visa (which has since been abolished).....

Maybe Boethius can illuminate the reasons Canada abolished their version of the K1..

[Faux Pas]

While I most emphatically do not regard the 90 days as a "trial period" for the citizen spouse, it is handy for those spouses who have never been to the country which will be their new home and have only had their fiance's descriptions as to what they will encounter in terms of lifestyle and "culture".

Get married on your first day ashore in the new world or use it to get to know your intended and your new environment better, to each their own.

Me  either and I don't "think", although I do not know for certain that it wasn't intended as a trial "get to know each other period". This is just my opinion on having been through one K-1. There was no reference anywhere to my recollection of a trial period. The K-1 works under the assumption that you will be married.


I'm not saving any pity for this damsel in distress. It's the effin she got for the effin she gave. She is as much at fault as the loser that invited her over. But let's not skim over the fact that there are many both men and women in this pursuit that are willing to gamble much more than they should and sometimes, they lose.

[BillyB]

What can she do ?
What options does she have?
What can be done to help her?

I dated a tourist visa RW who overstayed her visa and got permanent legal status after she got an immigration attorney and claimed her husband in Russia is physically abusive.
I dated another tourist visa RW who overstayed her visa but applied for and received an extension. She later applied for legal status and got it.
I dated another tourist visa RW who applied for asylum and got it since she was from one of the smaller FSU nations with a radical government.
I dated a RW who did a k-1 with a RM living here in the states married him and they divorced before the standard 2 years are required to stay married for her to get legal status. She got legal status anyway and never claimed abuse.
 
The RW in question may apply for a U visa which she can get if she is mentally abused and she doesn't have to have been married to an American and her abuser doesn't even have to be a citizen or of legal status.
http://www.immigrantjustice.org/federal-rules-offer-protection-immigrant-victims-violence
 
Considering she will have hardship if she returns home to nothing since she doesn't have a home and job, I'm sure some immigration attorney can help her. There are always ways of getting around things. The RW will be eligible for social programs at taxpayers expense. I just hope you're helping a person who's worth it.