Getting married to a FSU woman in a 3rd country

[Faux Pas]

Both of these were surprising to me as well. I had a conversation in chat with the OP and when i questioned the "legal advice" and advised second opinions he assured me multiple immigration lawyers advised him on this. It never sounded right to me.

Full disclosure of relevant prior criminal history is not only structured by law but is essential for a healthy relationship.

Time after time we keep seeing guys looking for shortcuts in this process. Time after time they disappear after protesting that they are exceptions to the rules and/or we see the train wrecks which follow.

Sometimes there is a valid reason for the safetynet laws which several here and elsewhere find so intrusive.

Hear hear!


As I stated earlier crap in/crap out.


If immigration attorneys advised him to end around the law, more than one even, something is wrong with this picture.


A prank as a juvenile delinquent IMHO isn't going to impede a K-1. Of course I am no lawyer. A felony crime will have implications. If the crime is such that he can not over come the implications, should this guy be attempting this endeavor? I say no

[OlgaH]

If immigration attorneys advised him to end around the law, more than one even, something is wrong with this picture.

I'm curious why those immigration attorneys don't know about the legal semantics of 'convicted' vs. 'adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent' , but USCIS knows  Something wrong with lawyers? 

[Faux Pas]

I'm curious why those immigration attorneys don't know about the legal semantics of 'convicted' vs. 'adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent' , but USCIS knows  Something wrong with lawyers? 

IMHO, it would point to some very questionable lawyers or if he queried any immigration lawyers at all. 

[OlgaH]

I have never dealt with immigration lawyers, but some ignorant (and what is worse more arrogant at the same time) lawyers in other areas of law are not a surprise. 

I think Jooky was right with his advice.
 

[Faux Pas]

I have never dealt with immigration lawyers, but some ignorant (and what is worse more arrogant at the same time) lawyers in other areas of law are not a surprise. 

I think Jooky was right with his advice.

A lawyer that tells you to break the law, just by virtue of the fact of telling you to, isn't much of a lawyer, is he?

[OlgaH]

A lawyer that tells you to break the law, just by virtue of the fact of telling you to, isn't much of a lawyer, is he?

lawyers break the rules and law very often btw  Sometimes they do very risky things to win the case 

To marry in the third country is against the law in the US?

[ECOCKS]

The story may not be complete. If these were simple, first consultations (as in "free initial") then they may not have gotten a clarification as to the particulars.

If these were paid opinions then it speaks volumes for the confusion and complexity of the Immigration laws in the US.

It should also illustrate pretty clearly how critical it is to get "the whole story" in preparing advice. When questions are asked perhaps answers are needed for advice to be accurate rather than regarded as intrusive or irrelevant, especially by those who are lacking in experience.

[OlgaH]

The story may not be complete. If these were simple, first consultations (as in "free initial") then they may not have gotten a clarification as to the particulars.

Most likely these were first consultation. Sorry Eisenoxide.     OP lives in very remote area they don't even have Fedex there. So, I'm not sure what kind of lawyer he could find. I also understood from OP he did not meet his fiancee through an agency or dating website, but they were introduced to each other by his friend who was a Christian missionary in Russia.

[GQBlues]

Speculation on my part, but methinks there really were no 'several' attorneys involved.
 

Most likely these were first consultation. Sorry Eisenoxide.     OP lives in very remote area they don't even have Fedex there. So, I'm not sure what kind of lawyer he could find. I also understood from OP he did not meet his fiancee through an agency or dating website, but they were introduced to each other by his friend who was a Christian missionary in Russia.

Wow! That must be remote. Even Botswana is served by Fed Ex, and their largest occupants are wildebeests...

[OlgaH]

Speculation on my part, but methinks there really were no 'several' attorneys involved.
 

That's what we like to do here  to speculate 

Wow! That must be remote. Even Botswana is served by Fed Ex, and their largest occupants are wildebeests...

Actually I'm not surprised that some remote rural places in the US don't have Fedex office, so you have to pay extra for their pick up service if you want to send something or to drive 50 miles to the nearest town. Especially some remote rural areas where the small Christian communities are located.

[Faux Pas]

lawyers break the rules and law very often btw  Sometimes they do very risky things to win the case 

To marry in the third country is against the law in the US?

Now you are just being facetious. Can you point out where I said that? 

[OlgaH]

Now you are just being facetious. Can you point out where I said that? 

OK so what law you were talking about? 

A lawyer that tells you to break the law, just by virtue of the fact of telling you to, isn't much of a lawyer, is he?

[Faux Pas]

OK so what law you were talking about? 

I see what you mean now. "Breaking the law" was perhaps a bit strong. A lawyer advising the OP to go marry abroad to circumvent the intended K-1 because of his criminal record. Which again, doesn't compute because the K-1 and the K-3 have basically the same burden of proof.

[Muckraker]

K-1 does not circumvent anything, hence, the lawyers are not telling him to end-run anything.  You must have missed the part where K-1 does not escape AWA.  "Burden of Proof" is totally irrelevant, this isn't about proving the bona fides of the relationship.  And he isn't talking about K-3 anyway, it's K-1 vs. immediate relative.
 
A juvenile adjudication of delinquency is not a “conviction” under federal immigration
Statutes only with regard to admissability or deportation/removal.  It other words, it would be relevant in determining the admissibility of the foreign national beneficiary fiancée/spouse to the U.S (or deportability if she were already in the US). It has nothing to do with AWA, which pertains to the eligibility of the petitioner to file the petition.  Under AWA, “conviction” includes (as interpreted by the USCIS, not found in the law) cited, arrested or charged.  They have also taken liberties such as requiring that the risk of "no harm" must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's an impossible standard, you can't prove that about anyone, so many of these cases have nowhere to go if the charge is serious.  If any of their systems hits (TECS, CJIS, IBIS Manifest, NCIC, NN16/NN11, etc) you enter their AWA-related petition process (unless the thing was dismissed, adjudicated not guilty, recorded as a “no prosecution” or the charge was withdrawn) and away you go to the immigration lawyer first and your priest second.  Unfortunately, you would not be able to go back to the USCIS whining about their bad advice. Also, note that nobody at the Embassy is even involved in an AWA approval or appeals process, including those posts with USCIS offices for resident petitioners.
 
I would imagine also that if you did a K-1, went through the AWA process and successfully appealed, you would have the pleasure of risking it all over again when she comes to the US and you file the I-130 and I-485 to adjust status.  Perhaps that is another reason to opt for the immediate relative petition up front.  Again, the USCIS does take into consideration the nature of the petitioner/beneficiary relationship in an AWA case, so again, that is another reason spouse vs. fiancee would be relevant. 
 
I'm also speculating if the missionary introduction would have been relevant, since at many posts these are considered high risk of fraud. At some posts (not Moscow necessarily) K-1 are adminstratively denied for lack of evidence of the relationship routinely due to fraud potential (Phillippines, Africa, etc.) without regards to evidence of the relationship presented. Perhaps some immigration attorneys unfamiliar with Moscow or who have clients who are risk averse would advise immediate relative over fiancee visa to avoid getting labeled.
 
Muck
 

[Eisenoxyde]

Ok, since everyone is dying to know what my actual crime was, here's what happened.  When I was 15 I was riding in a car with friends and we saw another group of friends in a park.  As we drove past, I mooned them and a cop saw me.  I was charged for indecent exposure and was put on probation.  6 years later I got pulled over for a traffic violation and the cop asked why I wasn't registered as a sex offender.  I never knew I had to register but at the time, Colorado law did not allow ignorance of the law as a defense so I now have 'Failure to register as a sex offender' on my adult record.

The lawyers were not trying to get me to do an end run or anything like that.  They were concerned that the K-1 (or K-3) could be presumptively denied based off my adult record without any actual investigation whereas the I-130 wouldn't.

[Eisenoxyde]

I should also mention that my friend was serving a mission for the LDS (mormon) church and we attended the same college, after his mission.  He introduced me to her while talking to her online.

[Daveman]

Ok, since everyone is dying to know what my actual crime was, here's what happened.  When I was 15 I was riding in a car with friends and we saw another group of friends in a park.  As we drove past, I mooned them and a cop saw me.  I was charged for indecent exposure and was put on probation.  6 years later I got pulled over for a traffic violation and the cop asked why I wasn't registered as a sex offender.  I never knew I had to register but at the time, Colorado law did not allow ignorance of the law as a defense so I now have 'Failure to register as a sex offender' on my adult record.

The lawyers were not trying to get me to do an end run or anything like that.  They were concerned that the K-1 (or K-3) could be presumptively denied based off my adult record without any actual investigation whereas the I-130 wouldn't.

Wow, I know this scenario sounds absurd but I had a friend back in the day with either the exact same or a very similar situation.  He got cited for indecent exposure for mooning as a teen and then had all kinds of problems later as an adult because of it.  I can't remember now if it was "failure to register as a sex offender" or what it was exactly, but I know for a fact that he had problems galore directly related to a stupid "mooning" prank as a teen.


He seemed to be a super nice guy and funny as hell, yet one flash of the ass completely changed his life.  Just absurd.

[ECOCKS]

I should also mention that my friend was serving a mission for the LDS (mormon) church and we attended the same college, after his mission.  He introduced me to her while talking to her online.

So, to be clear, you are now proceeding with the K1 process?

How are your preparations going for showing the relationship? Are you confident it will stand the test?

[Eisenoxyde]

I'm not 100% sure what we're going to do as she really would like her family to be at the wedding.  We need to discuss this a bit more.  In regards to proving our relationship, I have nearly 6 years worth of IM logs, phone bills, a few snail mail letters I sent her, my trip to visit her, and pictures of us together.  I'm pretty certain that it should be enough to satisfy that our relationship is bona fide.

[ECOCKS]

Good luck to you man, hope it turns out right for you.

[Anotherkiwi]

Wow, I know this scenario sounds absurd but I had a friend back in the day with either the exact same or a very similar situation.  He got cited for indecent exposure for mooning as a teen and then had all kinds of problems later as an adult because of it.  I can't remember now if it was "failure to register as a sex offender" or what it was exactly, but I know for a fact that he had problems galore directly related to a stupid "mooning" prank as a teen.


He seemed to be a super nice guy and funny as hell, yet one flash of the ass completely changed his life.  Just absurd.

Ya gotta be kidding!    to a bunch of your friends qualifies you as a sex offender?  What on earth is wrong with your legislators that they could come up with such an asinine law?  And with your prosecutors for wasting everyone's time by filing charges?  I'm so glad I live in a country where the circumstances are (usually!) taken into account before something gets to this stage (yes, I guess that this would have been kicked out in most of the other 49 states, but, in a country where GOB's wife carries a 9 mm Beretta in her handbag all the time, you have to admit that this doesn't actually seem too far off the wall).
 
Eisenoxyde, I seriously wish you the best of luck in your endeavours.  Six years is a VERY long time in this "game" to pursue one lady.

[Ade]

Ya gotta be kidding!    to a bunch of your friends qualifies you as a sex offender?  What on earth is wrong with your legislators that they could come up with such an asinine law?  And with your prosecutors for wasting everyone's time by filing charges?  I'm so glad I live in a country where the circumstances are (usually!) taken into account before something gets to this stage (yes, I guess that this would have been kicked out in most of the other 49 states, but, in a country where GOB's wife carries a 9 mm Beretta in her handbag all the time, you have to admit that this doesn't actually seem too far off the wall).

Just another day in the land of the "free".

[Boethius]

Yeah, it's pretty mind boggling, given issues with real sex offenders, that someone mooning, or teens having sex, could result in a tag as a sex offender.  Where I live,  a teen mooning would be fined, and would have no criminal record.

[ECOCKS]

Care to take a sporting bet as to whether a Dem or Rep legislature voted that in?

[Boethius]

I'd assume it is both, as those laws are made at the state level.  However, isn't that also the will of the people?

Part of the problem, in terms of enforcement, is that some prosecutors and judges are elected, rather than appointed.  That means they are not truly independent.