Getting married to a FSU woman in a 3rd country

[Eisenoxyde]

First off, my fiancee is from Russia and I'm from the U.S.  We first looked into getting a K-1 visa but several immigration lawyers said that in our particular circumstances it would be easier for us to get married outside the U.S. and then do an immediate relative petition.  We attempted to get married in Russia this past July but due to issues with lost paperwork and endless red tape we cancelled it.

Does anyone have suggestions for any countries that have a fairly straightforward process for 2 foreigners to get married?  The only one that I've found so far is Finland.  Has anyone here done something like this or have any advice for us?  Anything is greatly appreciated.

[tfcrew]

...several immigration lawyers said that in our particular circumstances it would be easier for us to get married outside the U.S. 
Does anyone have suggestions for any countries that have a fairly straightforward process for 2 foreigners to get married?

Odd that these same attorneys don't provide any info regarding this.

[Faux Pas]

First off, my fiancee is from Russia and I'm from the U.S.  We first looked into getting a K-1 visa but several immigration lawyers said that in our particular circumstances it would be easier for us to get married outside the U.S. and then do an immediate relative petition.  We attempted to get married in Russia this past July but due to issues with lost paperwork and endless red tape we cancelled it.

Need some more information here. What are your particular circumstances?

[GoodOlBoy]

I believe you can still get married to an FSU woman in Jamaica or the DR.
 
May I be so bold as to ask why you are attempting to do an end around the system? Felony?
 
GOB

[Eisenoxyde]

May I be so bold as to ask why you are attempting to do an end around the system? Felony?

I'm not trying to do an end run around the system, it was because of stupid stuff I did when I was a teenager that sounds significantly worse than it really is.  I explained it in detail in the RWD chat and a member talked to someone they knew at the American embassy in Russia and I was told to e-mail the embassy directly and that my situation will most likely not be any problem for getting a K-1 visa.  My personal guess is that the lawyers were just being extremely conservative about the whole situation.

I want to give a special thanks to everyone in the RWD chat for helping me out and giving me some very good ideas on how/what I should do to marry my fiancee.

[Turboguy]

I don't think they will deny a visa over things like that but they will discuss it with her at the interview to make sure she is aware of it.   They don't expect people to be perfect but they do want the women going into this with full awareness of someones background.

[Spoon]

I'd imagine there are plenty of Countries where Citizenship is not a barrier to a legal marriage. I married my wife in Australia, very easy to do, neither of us are Citizens of Australia, she was here on a tourist visa at the time (yes, we even explained we planned to marry while she was here on that visa, immigration were fine with it).

New Zealand was the same deal, many Japanese couples get married in NZ while they are visiting, Citizenship, they told me is not an impediment to marriage.

[Ade]

I'd imagine there are plenty of Countries where Citizenship is not a barrier to a legal marriage. I married my wife in Australia, very easy to do, neither of us are Citizens of Australia, she was here on a tourist visa at the time (yes, we even explained we planned to marry while she was here on that visa, immigration were fine with it).

New Zealand was the same deal, many Japanese couples get married in NZ while they are visiting, Citizenship, they told me is not an impediment to marriage.

For a lot of countries, citizenship is not an issue but length of residence is. Many Europeans take a trip to Denmark to marry their foreign partner as it can be a lot less time consuming and less hassle than to get married at home. It only requires a few days of residence; http://denmark.usembassy.gov/getting--maried.html

[Globetrotter]

Look into Cyprus, as I've heard that it's the Las Vegas of the Mediterranean.  Anyway, if I do what you plan on doing, it would be Cyprus for me.

[mendeleyev]

I explained it in detail in the RWD chat and a member talked to someone they knew at the American embassy in Russia and I was told to e-mail the embassy directly and that my situation will most likely not be any problem for getting a K-1 visa.  My personal guess is that the lawyers were just being extremely conservative about the whole situation.

Depends on what "it" was.

Don't be mistaken into thinking that the Embassy will grant a K3 over a K1 just because you're already married. The Immigration folks look into the same issues no matter where or when you were married. The last thing you need is to be married with no way of getting her to your home. There is no "right" to bring a spouse into the USA just because you are marred to a foreign lady. The immigration/visa issues remain the same.

[ECOCKS]

Depends on what "it" was.

Don't be mistaken into thinking that the Embassy will grant a K3 over a K1 just because you're already married. The Immigration folks look into the same issues no matter where or when you were married. The last thing you need is to be married with no way of getting her to your home. There is no "right" to bring a spouse into the USA just because you are marred to a foreign lady. The immigration/visa issues remain the same.

Right on the mark. You both will still have to be able to provide evidence of a real relationship.

The one caveat that would make it more cut and dried is in those instances where you lived [together] outside the United States for a significant length of time. This is why those of us who were expats know more K3's than K1's. These applications hit the Embassy and the "proof" of your relationship is largely self-evident when you have been living there for an extended period of time. The papers recording your marriage show clear a clear date marking the beginning of the marriage, your statement(s) on residence and life together are taken pretty much as stated and it DOES make it easier for the consular staff to approve it with fewer questions about emails, calls and visits.

Does that mean you can meet her this week, marry her and run home for the 6-8 months of processing then pick her up at the airport? No. You're going to have the same challenges proving the relationship AND now you're potentially legally married to someone who is barred from entering the country.

They do investigate these things. There was the fake English school in California, two or three rings of military personnel marrying and filing K3's and the like.

[Faux Pas]

From the OP's description it would appear he is (on the advice of counsel) attempting to circumvent the K-1 process. That doesn't on it's face anyway, sound logical to me as good advice.


As these two chaps have mentioned the K-3 has the same basic burden of proof as the K-1. If your record reflects something silly done as a teenager or a serious crime it seems to me you might best own up to it up front with the K-1 and ample proof of a legitimate relationship. Attempting to circumvent the K-1 will likely be frowned upon worse than some insignificant crime from your youth. FWIW

[BC]

I can't imagine getting married in RU as anything near a 'hurdle'....

A runaround for sure, but pretty straightforward.

[ECOCKS]

I don't really get the skeleton in the closet issue.

Assuming for the moment it's a felony, what felony would cause the consulate to reject the K1 application?

I didn't do K1 but my understanding is that they are primarily concerned with being sure the woman is aware of the record and particulars of the US citizen applicant.

Even if it was a domestic violence offense, don't they focus on being sure she understands that it occurred and what it involved rather than actually trying to talk her out of carrying through with the relationship?

If it's fully disclosed then what would be the problem with going K1 assuming all other proofs of relationship (visits, interview, emails, phone conversations, etc.) are in place?

On the other hand, failing to disclose the record and seeking to marry in a country which didn't do the background check IS that deliberate curcumvention of the process that FP mentions above.

[Faux Pas]

I don't really get the skeleton in the closet issue.

Assuming for the moment it's a felony, what felony would cause the consulate to reject the K1 application?

It's a gray area. Apparently he doesn't wish to disclose to us what the "matter" is. It could be something as simply got drunk and streaked, got caught and plead guilty to a sex crime. Being a sex offender certainly wouldn't look favorable on a K-1. Many times there's no differentiating the crime or circumstance.


Or it could be an assault resulting from a fight as a poster here not long ago. An assault likely wouldn't be as frowned upon as a sex crime.


If they were a distant past and could be deemed as not serious or misdemeanor, seems like his best course of action would be K-1. The confusing part is supposedly immigration lawyers suggesting K-3 when that is clearly not a K-3 situation

[ECOCKS]

Regardless of the offense, do you think consular staff work to actively stop the woman from maintaining/continuing the relationship?

I am thinking they explain the offense but don't actually try to talk her out of carrying through with the application.

Anyone heard different?

[alex330]

 Assuming for the moment it's a felony, what felony would cause the consulate to reject the K1 application?
 
 

Yes, I was informed it would make a difference by several immigration attorneys. Crimes involving moral turpitude MAY cause a denial of the K1. There is a list on the link below. Maybe a sealing and expungement would help? I am not an attorney and have no idea how by the rule book the consulate may be.

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

[ECOCKS]

Yes, I was informed it would make a difference by several immigration attorneys. Crimes involving moral turpitude MAY cause a denial of the K1. There is a list on the link below. Maybe a sealing and expungement would help? I am not an attorney and have no idea how by the rule book the consulate may be.

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

Wait a minute, is this your [moral turpitude] action or hers?

I certainly understand that if they see evidence of this (moral turpitude) in the person SEEKING the visa (her) they could deny but my question remains as to whether they would deny based on your record.

IF that is true, then it would seem you're effectively barred from EVER marrying a non-US citizen (unless a different reviewer was more favorable than the first) and bringing them here to live. It would also mean that the threshold for proving the relationship is higher for you than for others who lack a similar event in their past. Can this be the procedure?

Are registered sex offenders or drug pushers unable to bring over brides? Are these possibly covering up their records? As noted in the wiki definition, the specifics are vague. I wonder how subject to interpretation this really is?

[alex330]

Wait a minute, is this your [moral turpitude] action or hers?

I certainly understand that if they see evidence of this (moral turpitude) in the person SEEKING the visa (her) they could deny but my question remains as to whether they would deny based on your record.

IF that is true, then it would seem you're effectively barred from EVER marrying a non-US citizen (unless a different reviewer was more favorable than the first) and bringing them here to live. It would also mean that the threshold for proving the relationship is higher for you than for others who lack a similar event in their past. Can this be the procedure?

I was informed if you as an American citizen have one of these crimes it MAY affect the process. For the fiance who requires a background check it is without a doubt an issue. Like the OP mentioned, it seems attorneys are overly cautious and always throw the disclaimer out there.

Maybe someone reading has direct experience with this?

[ECOCKS]

I added this to a earlier post but Alex responded first so I'm posting the question separately:

Are registered sex offenders, murderers or drug pushers unable to bring over brides? Are these possibly covering up their records? As noted in the wiki definition, the specifics are vague. I wonder how subject to interpretation this really is?

[Faux Pas]

I added this to a earlier post but Alex responded first so I'm posting the question separately:

Are registered sex offenders, murderers or drug pushers unable to bring over brides? Are these possibly covering up their records? As noted in the wiki definition, the specifics are vague. I wonder how subject to interpretation this really is?

Honestly, I have no idea. There is no where I can find that defines that or what the USCIS investigation consists of. IIRC, the question was asked point blank on a couple of the K-1 application documents about any felony convictions and if so, what? They still do an FBI background check on the applicant and petitioner. I suppose for a cross reference as to what was declared on the application. I haven't read anywhere that a previous felony would disqualify one from a K-1. Certainly isn't going to improve one's qualification but does it disqualify one, I'd only guess no.

[ECOCKS]

Well, I certainly see that not giving the information could result in denial.

So, does the young lady know the details of the OP's past action already?

If so, it seems like the K1 process would only be affected by adding a few more questions to the interview process, The burden of proving the relationship would still be the determining factor unless it was determined that the woman was not fully aware of the OP's record.

I think it's been mentioned a couple of times to go look on VisaJourney but are any of you finding anything on VJ about this situation?

[Muckraker]

Could be the immigration attorneys have heard about the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 which was amends INA §§ 101(a)(15)(K), 204(a)(1)(A), and 204(a)(1)(B)(i) to prohibit a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who has been convicted of any "specified offense against a minor" from filing a family-based visa petition for any beneficiary, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, in his or her sole and unreviewable discretion, that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary.
 
Muck
 

[ECOCKS]

Could be the immigration attorneys have heard about the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 which was amends INA §§ 101(a)(15)(K), 204(a)(1)(A), and 204(a)(1)(B)(i) to prohibit a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who has been convicted of any "specified offense against a minor" from filing a family-based visa petition for any beneficiary, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, in his or her sole and unreviewable discretion, that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary.
 
Muck

Doesn't make sense.

Unless I am misreading this doesn't it say the opposite of what he was advised?

(from Wikipedia entry describing the Walsh Act, emphasis added for visibility)

"The Act also for the first time limits the rights of citizens or permanent residents to petition to immigrate their spouse or other relatives to the U.S. if the petitioner has a listed child sex abuse conviction. If that is the case, then the petition cannot be approved unless the Department of Homeland Security determines in its unreviewable discretion that there is no risk of harm to the beneficiary or derivative beneficiary."

This says "spouses" are the affected group as family members, not fiances.

[Daveman]

I added this to a earlier post but Alex responded first so I'm posting the question separately:

Are registered sex offenders, murderers or drug pushers unable to bring over brides? Are these possibly covering up their records? As noted in the wiki definition, the specifics are vague. I wonder how subject to interpretation this really is?

How could one cover up a record? It is my understanding that even if a record is "expunged" at the state/local, it *always* remains in the FBI database and, though this may be in error, I was told a while back that there is no such thing as having a record expunged from THAT database.  Isn't a background done on that federal level?


So what would someone do to cover it up? try using a different name or false documentation?