k-1 VS. k-3

[reveis]

I live in Connecticut so the Vermont regional office would be overseeing any application.  What is the waiting time of a K-1 vs. a K-3?

[Jhengsman]

The difference is negligible. Use other factors to determine whether to marry here or there.

[robert angel]

I thought that applications were still being done in Vermont, Texas, Nebraska and California, but we were working on the initial stages of a K1 packet (the 129F form) last night for a friend and my wife told me that they're all going to one state now. What gives guys? Is it still a number of states--a regional set up?
And isn't it true you should never just send in the 129F, that you should send the whole packet of info in, following the NOA 1, 2,3, the physical exam, the required Philippines class for women considering foreign marriage and the Embassy interview pattern? It's been a fairly long time, the game's always changing and I don't want to give bad advice.
 
As usual on google, I got a lot of lawyers and others, soliciting business and not pertinent information front loaded and I didn't have hours....
 
The sites below sure did talk alot about imbra and 'marriage brokers' the latter which I would think would include places like Fil--Latin Cupid, Blossoms, inc and how you need to give disclosure. I can't help but think that some embassy official who's wife gave him vinegar instead of coffee one day is eventually going to start making this a PITA, and I'd hate to be part of the unlucky couple that day. We try and be so anally dedicated to detail in fear of having the visa slowed down or out rightly denied and yet it seems the consensus on imbra is it's not 'actually' a big deal -----yet.
 
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Resources%20for%20Congress/Congressional%20Reports/2011%20National%20Immigration%20&%20Consular%20Conference%20Presentations/I-129F-Petition_for_Alien_Fiance(e).pdf
 
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5600b9f6b2899b1697849110543f6d1a/?searchQuery=K1
 
http://immigrationroad.com/visa/k1-fiance-fiancee-visa.php

[Researcher]

           
                          Here are the current timelines for both the K1 and K3:

                       

                       

                        Doesn't look like much difference time wise.


                       Researcher

[Researcher]

 
 
  Robert, here is a good guide for putting together the K1:
 
 Assembling the I-129F Package: Checklist 
Forms and Documents (follow these assembly instructions. All supporting documents must be in English or be translated as noted here.):
 

1. Payment as required by USCIS. Use a personal check so you can track the payment. Money Orders are also accepted. 2. Cover Letter (see example). Should include a description of what your are petitioning for (I-129F), a table of contents (list everything in the packet). If you need additional room to explain your case, attach a separate sheet (list the attachment on the cover sheet). Make sure to sign and date the cover sheet. 3. Form I-129F: Petition for Alien Fiance(e) (see example) 4. Declaration of how you met in person in the last two years. This should be a single typed page attachment regarding question 18 of the I-129F. Make sure to sign and date it. 5. Original statements (from both the US Citizen and foreign fiance) certifying an intent to marry within 90 days of entering the US on a valid K-1. (see example) 6. Proof of having met in past two years. (click here for examples) 7. G-325A filled out by the US Citizen signed and dated (see example). 8. One passport-type photo (see specification) of the US Citizen. Write the full name of the US citizen on the back. Place in a plastic bag and label the bag "Photo of <Insert US Citizen's Name>". Attach the bag to a sheet of paper and place behind the corresponding G-325a. 9. G-325A filled out by the foreign fiance(e) signed and dated (see example). 10. One passport-type photo (see specification) of the foreign fiance(e). Write the full name of the foreign fiance(e) on the back. Place in a plastic bag and label the bag "Photo of (insert foreign fiance(e) name) ". Attach the bag to a sheet of paper and place behind the corresponding G-325a. 11. Copy of the Birth certificate (front and back) for the US Citizen or a copy of ALL pages of the US Citizen's passport issued with a validity of at least 5 years or a copy of the US Citizen's naturalization certificate (front and back). This is used to establish citizenship. 12. Copy of final Divorce Decree(s) or Certificate(s) for the US Citizen and/or foreign fiance(e) if either has been previously married. If the previous marriage of the US Citizen and/or foreign fiance(e) ended due to the death of their spouse then include a Copy of Death Certificate(s) documenting that fact. 13. Proof of Legal Name Change if either the US Citizen and/or foreign fiance(e) is using a name other than that shown on the relevant documents. You must give USCIS copies of the legal documents that made the change, such as a marriage certificate, adoption decree or court order. 14. In regards to Section C Question 2, if applicable provide certified copies of all court and police records showing the charges and dispositions for any specified conviction(s) (in accordance with the IMBRA). See section 9 of the I-129f instructions for more information.

Documentary Proof of Having Met in Person in the Past Two Years and an Ongoing Relationship:Use as many of these items are possible. There is no minimum, but the more you can provide the less likely you are that you will receive an RFE. Additionally, please note that providing proof of your ongoing and genuine relationship in this package may benefit you by allowing the consulate to have access to this information prior to them formally contacting the non US Citizen fiance. Many high risk consulates approach cases with a skeptical eye and providing this information early on in the original I-129F package will help them in their preliminary review of your case.

 

1. Copies of all airline boarding passes, train passes, itineraries, hotel receipts, passport stamps (make sure you can read the dates on the stamps), and other documentary evidence that you have met within the last two years. You may want to highlight or place post-it notes indicating the dates and locations on the copies (to make the adjudication easier) for the person reviewing your file. 2. Color Photo's of you and your fiance(e) together. Make sure you write your names, date, and location on the back of every photo. Provide two to five photo's. If you only have a single copy of the photo, then make a color copy and send that. If it is a digital photo, have it printed at a company such as kodakgallery.com. You can also make duplicates of photo's at your local photo store (Walgreeens, CVS, etc). Place photo's in a plastic bag or photo sheet and label the sheet. Note that you may not receive originals of photo's back. 3. The following items will not typically show proof of having met in the last two years however will show proof of an ongoing relationship: Copies of phone bills, cell phone bills, emails (you can edit personal info with a marker), letters (edit personal info also), stamps on the letters (to document the date they were sent), and other written documentary proof. Provide a reasonable amount; two to four of each type. Pick a range of dates up to and including the present. You can also include a copy of engagement ring receipt (this is something that is a big optional - do not worry if you do not have a ring yet!)

[robert angel]

Thanks again, Researcher,
 
Are there still a number of 'regional service centers' for K1s? and/or spousals?  I remember ours went to Texas, which was overloaded, switched to California and then BACK to Texas! Back then, Vermont was by far the fastest, but wasn't our area center.
 
I looked at what you posted sort of quickly and didn't notice any indicators regarding this.
 
Thanks again--not just from me--but from those asking my wife and I for information--most of them are reading this too, ironically! Between here and more so with us, we want to help and not 'hinder'!!

[Researcher]

      I see your point Robert.When I checked the USCIS website on where to send the package it comes up with this info:

     http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=1872aca797e63110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=fe529c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

       That says to send it to a lockbox in Dallas, Texas. 

        Before the app was sent to California or Vermont, depending on where you live.For me the K1 I sent in was sent to Vermont. The K3 I sent in was sent to a lockbox in Chicago because of the backlog caused by the rate hike at that time. I would suggest that if you really want to be sure call USCIS and ask where to send the package.That's the best way to make sure you have the most up to date info.

      Researcher

[Dan]

Couple of things:

@Researcher. Please be careful with posting information from other sites. We have had a very good relationship with VisaJourney over the years with cross-links back and forth - and I do not want them to be upset with PL over a copyright issue.

Having said THAT, there are a number of resources here at PL that are, IMO, superior to what can be found at VJ. One of those is that we are MUCH closer to the IMBRA legislation. I've personally met with TJC on several occasions and we continue to have an active dialogue as to enforcement and to planned changes in the legislation. Mostly what is happening is that States are taking up the fight and are drafting legislation that is at least as intrusive as IMBRA. Still, as I wrote earlier, the focus remains on the business owners - not on the individuals.

@reveis. You may find this information pertaining to K-1 vs K-3 helpful -- http://www.planet-love.com/index.php?action=ezportal;sa=page;p=27. It probably needs to be updated with recent fee changes, but the process itself should be the same. Also, PL has several members who are bonafide experts in this field - including one who has practiced immigration law for decades. Maybe drop Ray or William3rd a note.

- Dan

[Ray]

I thought that applications were still being done in Vermont, Texas, Nebraska and California, but we were working on the initial stages of a K1 packet (the 129F form) last night for a friend and my wife told me that they're all going to one state now. What gives guys? Is it still a number of states--a regional set up?
And isn't it true you should never just send in the 129F, that you should send the whole packet of info in, following the NOA 1, 2,3, the physical exam, the required Philippines class for women considering foreign marriage and the Embassy interview pattern? It's been a fairly long time, the game's always changing and I don't want to give bad advice.

　
Robert,
　
Good idea on not wanting to give bad advice.
　
If you are going to help someone with a fiancée visa package, then at least read the instructions! Forget everything that you did years ago and how it worked back then.
　
Better yet, have your friend join this forum and we can help him/her with the paperwork if desired. No charge! 
　
Ray
　
　

[Ray]

reveis
　
Jhengsman gave you good advice.
　
I would add that there are many more important issues involved than the processing time for a visa.
　
Your first and most important decision should be which type of wedding you guys want and where you want to do it. I would strongly recommend that you let your bride be the major decider on that issue.
　
So when you have both decided to go ahead and marry, discuss all the options with her and when you have figured out how you want to marry, come back and we’ll help you with the various options you have to proceed from there.
　
Ray
　

[Capstone]

Jengsman & Ray have already given the best advice by stating the obvious in that processing times should be one of the least important things that you should consider when deciding which visa type to pursue.


BTW - the K-3 visa pretty much ceased to be a viable option in Feb 2010 when the NVC instituted the policy of canceling I-129F petitions whenever they are received with or after a corresponding I-130 petition. This coupled with the fact that for the past several years USCIS has been regularly approving & sending corresponding I-129F & I-130 petitions to NVC at the same time has pretty much made the K-3 no longer a viable option. So if you do decide to go the spousal visa route, you really need to look at the CR-1 process instead of the K-3 process. 

[Researcher]

    Reveis,  speaking as someone who has been through the K1 and K3 experience I can say processing time should be the least of your concerns. Both times I went through the process I found the info on visajourney.com to be spot on accurate as it is based on actual cases. I learned alot from the forum there and the timelines they give are pretty accurate. You can learn alot from the consulate reviews that people give.It's a great resource as is PL.


         Researcher

[Jeff S]

Just out of curiosity - What is the main difference between a K3 and a CR-1?


I'm sure everything has changed from when I got married overseas.

[Jhengsman]

As I understand it the K3 spousal visa was created because the CR-1 Immediate relative and conditional resident visa  did take a lot then the K1 finance (spousal) visa. It basically cuts out the  step of going back to USCIS after immigrating for the two year green card as it is done as a single package before immigrating,

[Dan]

This response will be far broader than only looking at K-1 v K-3, but since it seems relevant to some of the questions being raised, I present them for whatever they may be worth to our readers. The following are a series of posts I made at RWD not long ago addressing the topic of immigration legislation, its history, and the current effect on IMB's. You can click on the links to the posts at RWD and download the referenced attachments there. Here are the posts - hopefully coherent:

Back on-topic, I thought I might add a few thoughts of my own on the topic. Consider the following facts:

Agency Decline:

* Attached is an early, and VERY influential, report on the topic of Mail Order Brides by Marie Claire-Belleau, a Harvard-trained lawyer. The report is long at more than 200 pages, but it laid the foundation for many MANY of the feminist analyses that have followed, as well as some of the legislation we have seen here in the US. In it, you will find (among other things) reference to the number of agencies she found in June 2000 listed at GoodWife.com. Those numbers are:

 - 97 Asian agencies
 - 54 Latin American agencies
 - 150 FSU agencies
 - 39 multi-ethnic agencies
 - Total: 340 agencies

* Today, the numbers look like this:

 - 45 Asian agencies
 - 38 Latin American agencies
 - 85 FSU agencies
 - 35 other service providers
 - Total: 203 agencies

* The obvious conclusion is that there are significantly fewer NUMBERS of agencies today than there were a decade ago.

* Loads of factors influence this decline. Among them:

- Consider our collective opinion of agency owners (IMB owners) in terms of their integrity in comparison to other professions, as shown in this 2006 poll -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=3322.0. A quick summary is that agency owners rank LAST among all listed professions - below Labor union leaders, Advertisers and even below Car Salesmen.

- Since 2000 there has been an enormous increase in internet penetration and use in FSU countries. Where at one time a lady's access to the internet was through a local agency in the FSU, that era is long gone.

- Popularity of Russian social networking and dating sites is siphoning off traffic that formerly went to agency sites. I have no hard stats on this, only common sense and the knowledge of how rapidly social networking sites on all countries have experienced explosive growth in the past several years.

 - Lack of professionalism in the IMBs. In the attached report, Belleau cites an earlier work that concluded most owners of agencies were those who had been involved in a cross-cultural marriage themselves. GAO interviewed me in January '08, I rejected their notion that there exists any form of an organized "MOB Industry", and characterized it like a guy picking up shells on a beach in Brazil, and someone asks if he would sell one of the shells he picked up. The guy soon realizes that if he picks up those shells and polishes them a bit and puts them on top of a table on that beach with maybe a sign or two pointing to his table, he can sell quite a few of those shells. In effect, this is the exact same way in which many (most?, all?) IMB's came into being.

Legislative Ratcheting:

* There are the relevant laws:

 - War Brides Act of 1945 - allowed returning soldiers to repatriate with their foreign-born spouses
 - Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 - removed racial restrictions
 - Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - established annual visa limitations
 - Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments (1986) - created conditional residence due to marriage fraud
 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 - allows for self-petition of the immigrant spouse
 - Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - first act aimed at MOB businesses, requires agencies to disclose information to foreign fiances/spouses with enforcement provisions of fines
 - Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000 - created financial grants for immigrant women/children abused by their US sponsors
 - International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 - defines IMB requirements and extra-territorial elements of US law

* Whereas the original provisions that led to current K-visa legislation was aimed at facilitating cross-cultural unions, the mid-term legislation was enacted to protect the US citizen, and is now (since 1994) distinctly in favor of protecting the foreign-born spouse. To accomplish the latter, the focus is on creating the documentation and record-keeping burden on the part of the agencies/IMBs with attendant legal liabilities for failure to comply.

OK - will have more to add later.

- Dan

I left out a REALLY important document in my earlier post - while not representing new legislation, the attached 2006 GAO document gives official US government sanction to the nexus of the "Mail Order Bride" industry to international sex trafficking.

- Dan

David,

Just my take - but I think there is no doubt things are changing. The shape is being formed by numerous pressures - a couple I outlined above, and there is more. Some of this is merely observation - and some of it I can cite evidence - and some of it is related to our own little network of businesses and what we have seen over the years. Anyway - adding to my previous posts in this topic, the following:

* Agency owners, as mentioned in the poll upthread, suffer one of the worst reputations for dishonesty of any business. Since there is no empirical scale to measure such things, the poll we ran employed a relative measure, and in relative terms, there is NO BUSINESS ranking lower in the minds of its customers relative to integrity and honesty than agency/IMB owners. Candidly, this surprised me at the time and continues to surprise me. If the members of RWD who make up the customer base of these organizations thinks so low of them - imagine what John Q Public must think when their only exposure is what they read in the press or in the internet (more on this in a moment).

* As a business, the International Relations sites have been collecting revenues since 2006 - almost 5 years. In that time, the revenue stream year-to-year has been relatively stable. Far more stable than my primary vocation. During that time, the traffic levels at RWD and our other sites has increased - in some cases quite dramatically. The increase in traffic coupled with stable/level revenues suggests a lower revenue per traffic ratio. I have not done a lot of comparisons to see where the traffic emanates (to see if non-US is now a larger share of the traffic - which I am guessing is true), nor to examine revenue contribution per geography - mostly because we have moved hosts twice and those stats I might use for comparative purposes were lost. Point being - looking at the data from one dimension, it might be concluded there is a decline in business, on the other hand, without any increase in expenses, the revenues are reasonably stable suggesting no REAL change in the overall business levels. My sense is that our experience is quite similar to that of most agencies.

* I have spoken personally to nearly all the major agency owners - including the owners of Cherry Blossoms, AFA, HRB, Anastasia, European Connections, CupidMedia, CuteOnly, Dating-and-Matchmaking and numerous others. They know me, and for the most part we have a congenial productive relationship. They are, as one might imagine, quite tight-lipped about particulars, but all of them have hinted (or stated) that they see major changes on the horizon. At least several of them are actively seeking to diversify their offerings, and I daresay that none of them are 'standing still.' To some extent, my sense is they are all quite keen to see the direction IMBRA enforcement may take (and at the same time, hoping they are not the target of any actions). Without feeding any 'hype' or scare-mongering, I think it is safe to say they all feel some level of anxiety, with some being more proactive than others.

* On the topic of these major IMBs - I noted in Andrew's report that the claims the agencies themselves are largely to blame for the demise of the 'industry' ( I *hate* calling it that - 'industry' - as it has none of the attributes I attach to my connotation of an 'industry'). I agree with Andrew - though perhaps not for the reasons he cited. To the best of my knowledge the ONLY time the owners/leaders of the agency businesses made ANY effort to work collaboratively on anything, was when Preston Steckel decided to take on IMBRA in Georgia, and then a loose coalition of agencies worked together on an anti-IMBRA action filed in the Midwest. Both were unsuccessful and the coalition quickly disintegrated. When there are business interests under attack from the press and from the politicos, there must be a concerted effort to defend - and there was not - and there is not - and I do not believe there can ever be. The nature of the leaders of these businesses will not allow it - reference my earlier post on my comments to the GAO as to how these businesses are often formed.

* I will attach a couple of articles that serve to illustrate my point about cross-cultural marriage being under attack in the US. For example, one article (attached) makes this claim: "the mail-order bride industry is permeated by a necrophilic fantasy" (emphasis added) -- and another article from Harvard (attached) closes with this paragraph:

* And now we have the GAO report I referenced upthread giving sanction to the notion that IMBs have some nexus to sex trafficking - and the latest attempt at molding thought by redefining IMB to be IMB-T (IMB-Trafficker) in this article I posted here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=12913.0.

Still building the case - more yet to come (for those intrepid enough to still be reading).

- Dan

>>PS: Dan, i hope that you will not regret to have push me to come back... i am the same pain in the a$$ that a few year ago<<

Bruno - you may recall that I explicitly invited you to RWD when I saw a few of your posts at the old PL. Yes, you can be a PITA at times, but on balance you contribute far more than you detract.

As for the %'s of error at GW and the dates of the listings, yep, you are correct. The dates are misleading since we also migrated from a previous script and this only picks up the date of the migration (note that a great many of them are the same date in 2006) - AND - I have never felt confident of that date, as I see many that I know to not be accurate. The script does many other things VERY well, hence, the date glitch never bothered me - AND - we use a highly customized version of the script to do a LOT of things in the backend for stats and management of the listings.

My point being (again) - that I believe the comparison of 340 agencies listed in 2000 versus 203 agencies in 2010 is a valid comparison.

Your other point is that the decline is related to US only. Maybe - and maybe not. Many of the pressures leading to increased regulation in the US are also affecting Europe (at least), as evidenced by the attached reports from the Council of Europe (circa 2004).

Interestingly, Sweden is a founding member of the Council of Europe and yet In 1989, the Swedish Government appointed an Ombudsman Against Ethnic Discrimination to conduct a 9-month investigation into mail-order bride businesses. The Ombudsman concluded that the business was neither unethical nor unlawful:

So it seems from 1989 when the Ombudsman filed his report, to 2004 and the Council of Europe filed theirs - a significant shift in perspective had occurred.

My sense is that new legislation is often more difficult to gain passage in most Europe countries - particularly if it smacks of intrusion into personal rights and liberties. In any case, to the best of my knowledge there is no European equivalent of IMBRA - though the foundation is laid.

- Dan

GQ,

Yes, I recognize (and to some extent, accept) the argument that if you have nothing to hide, then don't worry about it. So here is my parallel:

* In the US, you have the right to privacy. The authorities are prohibited from unreasonable search and/or intrusion tactics. Mind you, they have a Supreme Court upheld right to lie through their teeth to you - but that is tangential.
* Home ownership is something that many aspire to in the US (and the numbers of ASPIRING seem to be growing daily - another tangent).
* If you own a home - what is your reaction if someone knocks on your door at midnight and announces themselves as the police (and you believe them) and asks if they can search your home for . . . (whatever)? Do you let them in?
* If you *do* let them into your home (having no real concern because you KNOW you do not have any of the 'whatever' it is they are searching for) - do you let them into your bedroom? How about your kid's bedroom? While they are sleeping?
* And if you allow them to do all that - what would be your reaction in 7 days time when another man (or woman) comes knocking on your door at midnight, announces themselves as law enforcement (and you believe them) and asks if they can enter and search your home for . . . this time it is 'something' (since they did not find 'whatever')?
* What if they ask to enter and search, but will not tell you what they are searching to find - will you let them in?

At what point do you draw the line and say; "This is too much!"

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights essentially drew that line in the sand and said it is NEVER to be allowed absent a damn good reason. Is the mere fact that a person is interested in a cross-cultural relationship reason enough for a person's fundamental right of privacy to be violated?!? I submit not - but recognize others will respond differently.

Just my take. FWIW

- Dan

VV,

Thanks for the clarification about necrophilia (I guess  ).

In terms of caring what others think - I resonate with that. Under most circumstances, I am confident enough in myself and my values, that I honestly just do not care. In those circumstances, the only time things manage to 'get under my skin' is when it begins to affect those around me - most specifically, my family. In most ways I have been very fortunate to NOT be exposed to much, if any, negative preconceptions or bias due to my marriage to Olya. She has only rarely reported noticing anything that she felt was owing to her birth citizenship or marriage to me. Still, we know people - quite a few of them - who have reported that they have been subject to comments in public that were based solely on the "Mail Order Bride" stereotype. Worse, it has occasionally been reported that children of these unions have had similar negative experiences. It is one thing to ignore a bigot - and I generally do. It is another when that bigot turns his/her vitriol toward my wife or children. I then do not ignore it. That is where I am at this point with the types of articles such as the one referenced. Silence in the face of such ignorant bigotry is tantamount to acceptance - and I do not and will not accept it any longer. Just my POV.

As for the "death" claim. I am not staking out a position that "death" is imminent. I expect that men and women who live in distant geographies will always be able to find one another. As I wrote upthread, I do believe the agency/IMB business model of the past decade is changing and will be shaped (or re-shaped, if you prefer) by at least two principal forces - legislation and technology.

In terms of IMBRA, you are not correct that IMBRA affects only Americans. Yes, it is a US law, but one with extra-territorial provisions. This means it is intended to be enforced outside the physical borders of the US. IMBRA makes the explicit *inclusion* of any agency operating anywhere in the world that is marketing to US clientele - which is for all intents and purposes all the agencies/IMBs that we have been discussing/debating. While one may argue the enforceability of US law on a foreign agency/IMB owner, that very point was discussed in another RWD topic not long ago, with the upshot being that; (a) the authors of IMBRA were VERY aware of the extra-territorial provisions included in IMBRA and the anticipated skepticism of enforcement actions, (b) enforcement is available if that foreign owner has ANY assets in the US or that transit the US or if they ever visit the US or any country with an extradition treaty with the US, and (c) there is an awareness on the part of those seeking to see IMBRA enforcement actions taken, that they need to concretely deal with the skeptics - and they plan to.

I met with the authors of IMBRA just a couple of months ago in Virginia (near DC). We had a very long meeting (not the first) and it was productive. I came away clearly understanding their resolve to see IMBRA enforcement actions commenced, and to some extent, the direction they wish to take with current enforcement, and with future plans for IMBRA. It is NOT going away. On that point, I am abundantly clear. Like most everyone else, I am now waiting for the translations of the pamphlet - the requisite 30 days - and then we can begin to see whether IMBRA will have any real teeth. I believe it will, but only time will tell.

VV - I need to take a bit more time to carefully review the agency 'model' and variants you laid out, and then to provide comment.

Have I managed to already tread where others did not - or does that come with the comments on the 4 agency variants?

- Dan

I'll take the opportunity to respond to this question by adding a few more statistics. This time, they are immigration stats from the Department of Homeland Security. You will find the two spreadsheets I used, developed and published by DHS, attached.

What you will find in the attachments is the in the US in 2009, the following are the Top 'n' countries for K-type nonimmigrant visas (K-1, K-2, K-3, and K-4) - the ones most often used by RWD members, and the visa type targeted by IMBRA:

7736 Mexico
7138 Philippines
2918 China
1597 Colombia
1596 Dominican Republic
1122 Thailand
1122 India
1109 Vietnam
1096 Canada
1082 Russia
1054 United Kingdom
1031 Pakistan
991 Ukraine

These 13 countries represent 29,592 K-visas issued of the total K-visas of 47,524 or 62% of the total.

Now, how about taking a look at the number of K-visas as a percent of the total of all admissions, and those numbers in 2009 would be 47,524 of a total of more than 160 MILLION - a percentage equal to 0.029%.

In terms of K-visas issued from 2000 to 2009, it looks like this:

2000 - 23,671
2001 - 27,121
2002 - 37,330
2003 - 44,029
2004 - 55,178
2005 - 58,374
2006 - 53,378
2007 - 57,002
2008 - 50,557
2009 - 47,524

It looks to me like the % of K-visas to the total runs very close to 0.030% each year with only minor variability from year to year.

FSU K-visas, as a percentage of ALL K-visas is a fraction of the total - and K-visas overall, as a percentage of ALL nonimmigrant visas is a very small number indeed.

Shadow's point is that FSU K-visas are an infinitesimal value and percentage, and that Asia and Latin America dwarf the FSU figures - at least, in the US.

Oh - and should Eduard be viewing, please note that Russia has MORE K-visas issued each year than Ukraine - which might suggest to the thinking person that Eduard's "statistics" are a bit . . . skewed. FWIW

- Dan

I/O,

Analysis of statistics can be tricky. In this instance, I saw that 2009 K-visas were fewer than at any time since 2003 - and with the understanding that K-visa issuance is a part of the broader immigration policy of the US, decided to look at the Total Admissions during those same years, which are (rounded):

2000 - NA
2001 - NA
2002 - NA
2003 - 180,500,000
2004 - 180,200,000
2005 - 175,300,000
2006 - 175,100,000
2007 - 171,300,000
2008 - 175,400,000
2009 - 162,600,000

From this view, one can see that the overall number of admissions to the US is declining since 2003, and if one were so inclined, a rate of decline could be determined. Still, the picture looks a bit different than the K-visa numbers, which were:

2000 - 23,671
2001 - 27,121
2002 - 37,330
2003 - 44,029
2004 - 55,178
2005 - 58,374
2006 - 53,378
2007 - 57,002
2008 - 50,557
2009 - 47,524

So I decided to try to place the numbers in context of the overall admissions, to see if (and by how much) the K-visa variability compared to the overall admissions, hence, my use of K-visa total divided by Total Admissions and expressed as a percentage - results in this:

2000 - NA
2001 - NA
2002 - NA
2003 - 0.024%
2004 - 0.031%
2005 - 0.033%
2006 - 0.030%
2007 - 0.033%
2008 - 0.029%
2009 - 0.029%

Since my only interest was in seeing the relative trend of number of K-visas to some reference point, this provided that trend and seems to indicate a relative stability in the context of overall admissions to the US. Another way to look at it is that K-visas are pretty stable in terms of overall US immigration policy.

Now to your point (I think - please correct if I missed it), there is some wide variability in the number of K-visas issued from year to year as seen if I add % change to the table:

2000 - 23,671 - baseline (for these purposes)
2001 - 27,121 - 15% growth
2002 - 37,330 - 38% growth
2003 - 44,029 - 18% growth
2004 - 55,178 - 25% growth
2005 - 58,374 - 6% growth
2006 - 53,378 - 9% decline
2007 - 57,002 - 7% growth
2008 - 50,557 - 11% decline
2009 - 47,524 - 6% decline

I hope this helps explain what I was trying to accomplish.

- Dan

Sure.

K-visas are the primary means a US sponsor uses to bring a fiance(e) or spouse to the US. K-visas are the explicit target of IMBRA. One might ask - Well, how many people are affected by IMBRA? That answer, in straight numerical form is shown in the earlier tables, and for 2009 it means that IMBRA affected a *MAXIMUM* of 47,524 people - though we know it is substantially fewer than that for the reasons Jooky pointed out upthread. Basic point being, there are not many people directly affected by IMBRA.

The other question that I wanted to explore is whether K-visas are trending higher or lower in terms of overall immigration policy. If the number of K-visas were to be increasing (or decreasing) at a rate far different than overall admissions, it *might* indicate some form of a change in immigration policy specific to K-visas. I might have used the total nonimmigrant visas as my denominator, but decided it was more convenient to use the Total Admissions figures - and yes, I realize there are all sorts of admissions to the US that have absolutely nothing to do with cross-cultural marriage - but as a reference point for determining a trend, it is as good as any other denominator (and probably better than most).

In that context, the K-visas look reasonably stable from year to year. There is nothing to indicate that K-visas are increasing or decreasing at a rate that is inconsistent with overall US immigration policy. That is ALL I was hoping to accomplish with the trending.

Maybe if I add some context.

Here is a brief summary of all major US immigration legislation for the past century:

1917: Immigration Act of 1917 - First major codification of immigration laws in the US
1924: Immigration Act of 1924 - Established quotas - defined "nonimmigrant"
1945: War Brides Act
1946: GI Fiancees Act
1952: Immigration and Nationality Act (a/k/a McCarran-Walter Act) - Reaffirmed the national origins quotas
1965: Immigration and Nationality Act - Abolished the quota system - enacted uniform numerical limits
1970: Public Law 91-225 - Established K-visas (K-1 and K-2)
1986: Immigration Reform and Control Act - Authorized the Visa Waiver Pilot Program
1986: Marriage Fraud Amendments - established conditional residence
1994: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - created nonimmigrant visa classifiction for witnesses and informants - allowed for self-petition by the immigrant spouse in special circumstances
1996: Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act - requires international matchmaking organizations to disseminate information to foreign fiancees or face penalties of fines
2000: Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act - created nonimmigrant visa category for alien victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons
2000: Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act - provided financial grants for immigrant women/children abused by their spouse
2000: Legal Immigration Family Equity Act - created K-3 and K-4 visas
2005: International Marriage Broker Regulation Act

Perhaps the most significant of those were in 1986 when the focus was on controlling illegal immigration to the US and in 2000 when the precursor legislation to VAWA was passed.

In any case, since K-visas are merely a small subset of the broader immigration picture in the US, I wanted to do a quick examination of how K-visas 'fit' into the bigger picture.

Make sense?

- Dan

You are correct - sort of.

Imagine for a moment that YOU are the law-abiding owner of an agency that offers services to American clientele, as well as clientele from other countries. It matters little where you are based, as IMBRA is extra-territorial.

IMBRA is designed to place a burden on the IMB. Penalties for failing to follow IMBRA accrue to the IMB, not to their clientele - at least, not yet.

As the IMB owner, and being aware of IMBRA requirements, you would likely devise a system that complies with IMBRA. Now, depending on whether you believe the basis of IMBRA has merit, you might conclude that it is more cost to you (the IMB owner) to maintain two different systems - one for IMBRA clientele and one for other clientele, hence, it is more cost-effective to just have the one that you are mandated to have by IMBRA.

Is that how the big agencies/IMBs work now? I think a couple of them make the same demands for information regardless of the citizenship of the client - but, admittedly, I have not tested this question to be sure.

Aside from that, citizens of foreign countries who are NOT owners of an IMB are likely to not feel much 'sting' from IMBRA.

Does that help?

- Dan

First, it needs to be understood that IMBRA is aimed at the businesses - the International Marriage Brokers such as AFA and Elena's Models (and the smaller ones as well). The penalties for failing to follow IMBRA accrue to those IMBs, and allow for both civil and criminal prosecution.

My best guess (FWIW) is that when the US authorities file their first case or two to prosecute an IMB for failing to abide by IMBRA, it will send a chill through the IMB owners that will give them VERY serious pause. The potential liabilities for engaging in this business will begin to become *real* and they will have to give those liabilities very serious consideration. A fairly large number of agency/IMB owners have already felt threatened enough by IMBRA that they closed their businesses - and that is before (long before) a single enforcement action was initiated. An IMB owner facing prosecution by federal authorities is looking at a nightmare in the cost of defense - so much that it is hard for me to imagine that IMB surviving as a business.

To some extent, one might look at IMBRA as forming an entry barrier to new agencies/IMBs entering the business. Most businesses have entry barriers of various sorts, and those tend to discourage new entrants unless the barriers can be overcome.

The other entry barriers, I suppose, are the source of profiles along with the time it takes to establish an internet presence.

In terms of sourcing profiles, the very large IMBs seem to now be utilizing small local agencies - something that I believe was first developed by the Angelika network when Larry Gucciardi was still involved. He was one of those who assessed the liabilities resulting from IMBRA and decided to opt-out. Having said that - this is my understanding of the timing and events, and I may be wrong. If anyone has direct contact with Larry and would like to ask him here to clarify, that would be most welcome.

Back to the topic of profiles and their sourcing. It seems like the Achilles Heel for the large IMBs is the feeder/affiliate networks. We see a lot of commentary recently about the large mega-IMBs acting as consolidators and being unable to effectively control/manage the behaviors of their many different small affiliates spread throughout the FSU. That being the case, it will be interesting to see how these consolidators fare if THEY are the ones implicated in an IMBRA enforcement action.

More and more I am seeing just how difficult it would be for the large IMB owners to manage these affiliates and to protect themselves from the consequences of those affiliate's behaviors. Billy B mentioned treating them similarly to how a general contractor on a large construction project manages smaller subcontractors - and I see the parallel, while also seeing the geographic and logistic differences in this business model.

OK - all of this is focused on the IMB. I'll give some thought to writing up the consequences that might accrue to the individual clientele - as there are some, and there are plans for more.

- Dan

Perhaps the more telling stats are these:

K-visas in:

1985: 7,807
1990: 7,218
1995: 8,561
2000: 23,671

What happened between 1995 (or thereabouts) and 2000 that led to a 300% increase (approximately)?

Guesses anyone?

- Dan

I know there is a tendency to ascribe malicious intent to the authors/originators of IMBRA. IMO, to do so is to be guilty of the same knee-jerk reaction that undoubtedly eased the passage of IMBRA - if not facilitated it altogether.

Taking Tahirih Justice Center as perhaps the most visible focal point for IMBRA - I've spent time with several of the folks from Tahirih, and found them to be sincere, intelligent, and genuinely driven to achieve their organization's Mission. Further, as the father of a young daughter, I find their Mission commendable and have no problem at all stating my active support for the organization generally. None of which is to say that I support IMBRA or that I will not seek to make important changes to the legislation.

To suggest that IMBRA is part of a misandrist campaign to control men would be, IMO, to grossly underestimate the people (both men and women) who have played a part in the IMBRA legislation.

My belief is that IMBRA's authors are well-meaning, and they sincerely want to find an effective mechanism to better protect immigrant women from the types of well-publicized abuses seen in the Indle King case (among others). My interactions with TJC have never given me any reason to believe they are either misandrist in their policy or belief - nor are they unreasonable about listening to alternatives to achieve their objectives.

Having said THAT - I also expect that the politicos that played a role in passing IMBRA are certainly not above taking advantage of a sensational media to achieve their personal and political aims - nor is TJC 'too good' to fail to take advantage of the fund-raising opportunities presented by IMBRA and the same sensational press the politicos have availed themselves.

While I have absolutely NOTHING to defend my position on this next point (aside from common sense) - I *do* believe there is an instinctive resistance on the part of AW when they learn that AM prefer to find a partner in a foreign country. I doubt this can ever be measured or even defined with great certainty - but there is the fact of natural human reaction when feeling rejected (for any reason), as well as the influences of millennia of years of conditioning that encourages reasonably close geographical mating.

All these things, and more, are a part of the motivations behind IMBRA (IMO) - and to be effective with opposition of IMBRA, it will be necessary to deal with the objections - both of real issues, as well as those that are more difficult to get to come to the surface.

- Dan

I/O, from the tables it appears that the K-3 non-immigrant spouse visa was introduced in 2000. That would explain an increase in overall K visas as a shift from an immigrant spousal visa to the non-immigrant version.

K Visas from 1989-2009

K-1 Fiance(e) of U.S. citizen   
6,268   
6,341   
6,060   
6,977   
7,893   
7,903   
8,926   
8,469   
9,108   
10,502   
12,088   
12,968   
17,025   
21,471   
24,973   
28,338   
25,304   
29,658   
33,910   
30,575   
33,190   
30,288   
27,679

K-2 Child of fiance(e) of U.S. citizen   
797   
741   
621   
692   
749   
748   
838   
743   
895   
1,095   
1,367   
1,499   
2,431   
3,275   
3,735   
4,298   
3,752   
4,694   
5,308   
5,013   
5,455   
5,013   
4,188

K-3 Spouse of U.S. citizen awaiting availability of immigrant visa   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
-   
3   
5,078   
12,403   
13,623   
11,312   
10,341   
9,816   
7,854   
7,210

If we're talking about just Russia and Ukraine, here is the pattern of K-1 visas:

Russia
1997    747   
1998   816   
1999   1189   
2000   1666   
2001   1844   
2002   1488   
2003   1559   
2004   1687   
2005   1477   
2006    1420   
2007   1340   
2008   945   
2009   775   

Ukraine
1997   282   
1998   478   
1999   849   
2000   1063   
2001   1115   
2002   1388   
2003   998   
2004   1205   
2005   1179   
2006   908   
2007   930   
2008   743   
2009   689   

You can compare with Great Britain / Ireland where there is no bride business:

UK
1997   537   
1998   617   
1999   813   
2000   928   
2001   927   
2002   1020   
2003   918   
2004   1031   
2005   987   
2006   879   
2007   881   
2008   784   
2009   771   

Also of interest, the statistics for immigrant spouse visas
(includes conditional visas)
1992   62107   
1993   74735   
1994   77390   
1995   47724   
1996   52292   
1997   57482   
1998   44113   
1999   49369   
2000   54106     
2001   59473   
2002   54179   
2003   46392   
2004   43553   
2005   52766   
2006   55252   
2007   61951   
2008   75527   
2009   75839

Without knowing what percent of visas can be attribute to IMBs, we can only speculate what the numbers mean in regards to this discussion.

One thing is for sure though, the matching of Americans and Russians / Ukrainians results in less than 1500 marriages per year these days. Even if marriage brokers reaped a profit of $1000 per couple, the gross would be $1.5 million, enough to run one small company. That's being very generous with the numbers. I'd bet the actual amount of cash spent on marriage brokers per year by actual men that get married isn't enough to pay one CEO's salary.

The real money in the marriage business isn't in the marriages, it's in the fantasy.

@reveis - see what happens when you ask a simple question?

Seriously, the stats above are solid. The opinions expressed are only that and everyone should draw their own conclusions - assuming you made it through this missive and are still 'around' to read this paragraph 

- Dan

[Ray]

Just out of curiosity - What is the main difference between a K3 and a CR-1?

Jeff,
　
The K-3 allows your foreign spouse to come here and wait for the processing of your SR-1/CR-1 immigrant visa petition instead of waiting overseas.
　
It’s only a valuable option if it processes quickly and the CR-1 process takes much longer. Recently, the relative processing times are much closer than they were 10 years ago.
　
I generally recommend submitting a K-3 petition for insurance against possible long processing delays. There is no additional filing fee and the required documentation is virtually identical to that for the CR-1 petition.
　
Ray
　

[Ray]

As I understand it the K3 spousal visa was created because the CR-1 Immediate relative and conditional resident visa did take a lot then the K1 finance (spousal) visa. It basically cuts out the step of going back to USCIS after immigrating for the two year green card as it is done as a single package before immigrating,

　
　
Actually, the K-3 works a little differently than that.
　
You still have to go back to USCIS and adjust status, similar to the K-1 Fiancée visa. After adjustment of status, the conditional green card will be issued unless you have been married for at least 2 years, in which case the 10-year permanent green card is issued.
　
The real purpose of the K-3/K-4 visa was to allow reuniting of married families while awaiting the long processing delays involved with the SR-1/CR-1 spouse visa in the past.
　
The big advantage of the CR-1 over the K-3 is that the green card is issued upon arrival of the CR-1 while the K-3 must go through adjustment of status later when the I-130 petition is approved. This usually means a shorter wait time for eligibility for naturalization with the CR-1 also.
　
Initially, the K-3/K-4 petitions were all processed at a dedicated processing center and were being approved in 1-3 months instead of the typical 9 months to 2 years for the I-130. By policy, the K-3/K-4’s were supposed to have priority over processing of other visa classes at the consular level, but most consulates simply ignored that, which made the K-3/K-4 somewhat less effective.
　
Ray
　

[piglett]

Just out of curiosity - What is the main difference between a K3 and a CR-1?


I'm sure everything has changed from when I got married overseas.

my understanding is that they either "have" or "are" in the process of doing away with the K3
 
 
pig

[no comment]

Reveis,
If your goal is to be together with your woman in the US sooner, consider that getting married in her country will require the time for them to process your documents before the wedding plus the wait for the marriage certificate after.  I got married in her country and filed a petition for alien relative (spouse).  In hind sight, I think we would have been together by now had we gone for a fiance visa.  Instead we're waiting for the embassy interview later this month.

[Ray]

 

…consider that getting married in her country will require the time for them to process your documents before the wedding plus the wait for the marriage certificate after.

　
Which documents were those? No documents are submitted to or processed by USCIS before the wedding.
　
If you are talking about local government processing overseas, then that depends entirely on the country where you marry.
　
When I married in the Philippines, there was no document processing time but there was a 10-day wait for the marriage license to be issued. In my case, I received certified copies of the marriage certificate a few days after the wedding.
　
Ray
　

[no comment]

Which documents were those? No documents are submitted to or processed by USCIS before the wedding.
　
If you are talking about local government processing overseas, then that depends entirely on the country where you marry.

I'm referring to the foreign government, Peru in my case.  I had to get a number of documents and have them certified or notarized, then officially translated before sending them down to my fiance for her to submit.

[michaelb]

"Officially translated"? As in the translation has to be done by somebody approved by the Peruvian government? Then maybe blessed (certified) by the Peruvian consulate office that has jurisdiction where you live? Sounds like that could turn into a hassle and possibly an unpleasant expense. Good luck.   

[Jeff S]

In Japan you are married when you go to the Ward (similar to County) Office and put in your official family register that you are married. A certificate is issued on the spot and you're married, whether you have a ceremony or not. I was required to get a certified translation of the document for the American embassy. We handled the marriage registration, official translation, and the embassy filing on the same day - all before lunch. That was all a week or so before our ceremony.

[robert angel]

In Japan you are married when you go to the Ward (similar to County) Office and put in your official family register that you are married. A certificate is issued on the spot and you're married, whether you have a ceremony or not. I was required to get a certified translation of the document for the American embassy. We handled the marriage registration, official translation, and the embassy filing on the same day - all before lunch. That was all a week or so before our ceremony.

Jeff,
 
That was easy! Well, while getting my wife over from the Philippines on a K1 wasn't all easy, ONCE she got here, it couldn't have been much easier. About a month after she got here, we decided to go down to the court house to find out about getting a marriage license. Their office is right next to the office that issues pistol permits, which I found humorous.
 
At the courthouse, we ran into a swell fellow, a prominent veteran judge in our county, leaving his office. He was wearing a rain coat, umbrella in hand, heading home. We asked him about making an appointment to be wed. He looked us over, paused for a moment and  said 'If  you want, "I'll marry you right here and now". Taken aback, after all we were in very casual attire and just happened to have two inexpensive sterling rings  on our fingers that we'd  picked up a couple weeks before at the beach, we thought for a couple moments. But we knew in our hearts it was what we wanted and we wanted to get the paperwork all filed with the fed and out of the way ASAP. So then and there, we were legally married!
 
A month later, we had another ceremony down in Florida, with a reverend 'redoing' the vows, wedding wear, flowers, food, wine and  finery, as well as friends and family, who'd flown in from N.Y to California all in attendance (many who hadn't seen each other in years)  and we all had a great time!

[Jeff S]

Mine was a full-on Shinto ceremony, done by a priestess - complete with casting out evil spirits, chanting, drinking sake, kimonos, and the whole nine yards. I didn't have to say anything or make any promises - just sat and listened, and of course drank the sake at the appropriate moment that seals the deal.