-------------------------------------------
Top Reasons Why K1 Fiance Visa is Better than CR1 Spouse Visa - Duration: 11:43.
This is Fred Wahl the VisaCoach
Today's topic is: Why Fiance Visa is better than Spouse Visa
Visa Coach
Fast, Easy and Personal
I am Fred Wahl, the VisaCoach, I am known for the
personal one-on-one relationship that WE share, (that's you, me and your partner), as WE work
together, as a TEAM, to overcome the many challenges
of immigration,
Please don't risk your happiness, Don't go this course alone.
Alone, it's far too easy to make mistakes that cause tears,
delays and expensive denials.
Do Pick up the Phone and speak with me directly, so that,
you and I, can get to know each other.
This is the complimentary case evaluation I talk about
later.
If we are compatible, that's the beginning of our beautiful
relationship to get you the immigration approvals you need.
This is what two of my clients Hamid and Marjan, had to say: Marjan comes from Iran and I helped
her get her Fiance visa.,
She said it took 45 minutes and they went over almost 90% of the
sample questions you had given us.
She was amazed by how spot on you were.
She got a letter saying Congratulations on the conditional approval of your visa........
She said they asked a lot of questions about age difference,
my family and even tried to test her to see if I had told her
about my incarceration.
These people even read the chat messages that we printed as evidence
of relationship and asked why you guys were talking about
this and that.
At the end, one of the two interviewers left and the other
one whispered to Marjan "Be honest with me, why are you marrying him,
is it for the Green Card?"
She handled it well
Thanks again,
Well, you are most welcome: Hamid + Marjan
Now, lets talk about Why a Fiance Visa is better than a Spouse Visa.
I get calls every day.
And the conversation usually starts with no preamble but "I have
a girl or boy friend overseas, please tell me, what is the BEST visa to get him or her
here, Fiance or Spouse"?"
My answer always is "well, it depends upon your situation and what your priorities are.
It depends on what is important to you.
Is it fastest speed?
Lowest Cost?
Relative simplicity?
Are children involved?
How old are they?
Do you have enough income to self sponsor or do you need a co-sponsor?"
And so on.
Only after I understand what the person's situation is, and what his or her priorities
are, can I suggest what visa might fit.
On reviewing annual US immigration statistics comparing how many K1 fiance visas are issued,
compared to CR1 spouse visas, there is no clear cut winner in the "which is better"
contest.
Amazingly enough it's a TIE !
In recent experience about 40,000 of EACH are issued annually.
Again the real answer is "it depends".
That is one of the main reasons I invite future clients to first book a free case evaluation
with me.
Besides giving us the chance to get to know each other, and feel if we can work together,
it gives me the opportunity to learn what is going on, and what the person wants.
Then together we discuss the pros and cons and figure out which of the two visas best
fits.
But today, I am going to list just the PROS, the TOP positive reasons why most who choose
the Fiance Visa path, actually choose it.
Next month I will take the other side and list the top reasons why a Spouse visa path
is chosen instead.
Reason #1.
Fiance visa is twice as fast
In 2018 this means while a spouse visa takes 14 to 18 months on average, a Fiance visa
will get your fiancee to the US much sooner, in half the time, only 8 to 9 months on average.
The reason the spouse visa takes longer than the fiance visa, is because the time to approve
permanent residency is included in the spouse visas processing time.
A K1 Fiancée visa is considered a non-immigrant visa.
Non-immigrant means it is only for a short and temporary stay, and that is only 90 days.
This compares to a regular immigration visa like a CR1 Spouse Visa which not only gives
the person permission to enter the USA, but also grants permission to remain permanently
as a lawful permanent green card holding resident.
A fiance visa does not need to include the the time it takes to review for permanent
residency and green card approval, only approval for a short 90 day visit instead.
And immigration knows that their fiance visa review can be less vigorous and thus faster
because they understand, that if the fiancee marries and applies to remain in the USA,
there will be a second chance to review the applicant all over again, when the new bride
or groom applies for permanent residency after arrival, after the wedding.
Reason #2.
Wedding in USA
The second reason a fiance visa is better is when the couple wants to celebrate their
wedding in the United States.
Usually this means they want to share their happiness with their American family and friends.
Reason #3.
Fiance's Children ages 18 to 21 are still eligible to immigrate with Parent
The third reason that a fiancée visa is better is when the foreign fiancé wants to bring
his or her children to the USA, who are 18 years of age or older.
When applying for a fiance or spouse visa the American sponsor can also at the same
time apply to bring to the USA the dependent children of his or her fiance or spouse.
If the wedding has taken place, the American sponsor can apply for a spouse visa, and regular
immigration for any child who was under 18 years old on the day of the wedding.
The American Spouse is limited to only apply for the under
18 year old's.
Any children aged 18 to 21 would be left behind.
However, if the couple is not married, and instead applying for a Fiance Visa, then the
American can sponsor the older children too, up to 21 years of age.
Reason #4.
Single trip Engagement appears more bona fide vs single trip Wedding.
Finally a fiance visa may be better than a spouse visa, when a couple plans to only meet
once, only make one trip, and only meet a single time and then apply for the visa.
This is because the timeline of their relationship will seem to make more common sense.
The couple who makes a marriage proposal, after meeting face to face, that then applies
for a visa have followed a more normal courtship progression of getting to know each other
first, before making life changing decisions.
And if their acquaintance has been short, they still have more time to get to know each
other, while the fiance visa is pending before having to make the final commitment at the
altar.
This compares to a couple who has never met, and sight unseen, agree to marry, make arrangements
in advance of the trip, and then almost without catching breath to get over jet lag move directly
from arrivals at the airport to the altar.
Remember the consular officer making the approve or deny decision, does not know you.
Does not know how honest and sincere you are.
However, he is aware of some dishonest people who offer money and a free overseas trip,
to an American willing to marry, then sponsor a foreigner for immigration.
If your genuine relationship follows the same apparent course that some common sham applications
follow, the consular officer might not be able to identify yours from the other.
And for a consular officer, "when in doubt, the safest decision, is to deny"
To summarize, Couples who only have ONE TRIP, to meet in person, then propose, then apply
for fiance visa, will appear to a skeptical consular officer more Bona Fide, than a couple
who only have ONE TRIP, where all marriage plans, had been made and committed to in advance
of the first in-person meeting, and who carried out those prearranged plans immediately upon
arrival.
Next time I will describe the top good reasons why a CR1 Spouse Visa is better.
This was Fred Wahl, The VisaCoach
Please "like" or add your comments to this video.
Then go to VisaCoach.com and sign up for the VisaCoach
monthly newsletter.
Each month it is full of tips and advice on marriage based immigration.
And its free of charge.
And when you sign up you get two free ebooks I have written
"120 K1 Visa Interview Practice Questions, and "5 Things you must know before starting
your visa"
Finally, when you are ready to get started, call for
your complimentary case evaluation and speak with me directly,
Before starting on your immigration adventure, before
entering an arcane maze of rules, regulations and procedures,
before committing yourself to a risky path that could
mean an end to your happiness, speak with the VisaCoach
and ask for his Free Case Evaluation.
He listens to you to learn the red flags and strengths
of your case, your eligibility and goals.
He will suggest which visa is right for you, the best strategy
to get it, and how soon your love could join you.
VisaCoach's friendly advice and support might make
the difference between approval and denial, and
could save you months, or years, of loneliness and separation.
What have you got to lose?
Book your free evaluation today.
-------------------------------------------
Why is the contract with Harry Maguire going to be a bad move for Man United | Transfer News #MUFC - Duration: 3:20.
Manchester United are still in the race for signing Harry Maguire from Leicester City.
The English centre-back had a good season with the Foxes, and an even better World Cup
with the Three Lions.
Now, with little bit over 10 days until the Premier League kicks off – and the match
that will start it is the one between United, and Leicester – the Devils are still in
need of a centre-back.
We looked in recent days/weeks why that transfer would be a good one or what would be the positives
to take out of it.
But let's stop there for a second, and go the other direction.
What would signing Harry Maguire be a bad move for Manchester United this summer?
Let's dig in.
Man United's Lack Of Planning
Imagine this scenario – Manchester United know for the biggest part of the previous
season that they are in an urge of signing a centre-back.
And at least one.
Marcos Rojo did not play much and was mostly injured, Phil Jones started decently but then
it all went south, while Chris Smalling would probably be best, if kept as part of the squad,
on the fringes of the starting XI.
Months of planning are ahead, and United have the firing power to sign players from basically
any league, and most European clubs, with some obvious exceptions.
And then, with 10 days to go, there is still no one signed and Harry Maguire is the first
option.
He was good for Leicester, but he was not spectacular, and it was only his first season
at a decent level.
And then he played a very good World Cup, being one of England's best and most reliable
players.
So what would have happened if he did not play well?
Or was benched?
Or was not even in the squad, as just four or five months ago – when United already
started planning new arrivals – he was not really likely to travel to Russia?
Who would be the first target for Man United then?
Not The Marquee Signing
Harry Maguire would not be a marquee signing.
He would not be the leader of this team, just by arriving at the club.
You could not really say the same about Toby Alderweireld or Cesar Azpilicueta.
The latter of the two would be harder to get from Chelsea, but United have done similar
transfers before.
Maguire is all well and good, but at this point United need a player of Leonardo Bonucci's
or Diego Godin's ilk.
Simply, Maguire is not that kind of player.
Too Much Money For His Quality
And the last point is tightly connected to the previous one.
Why spending 65 million pounds on a player the club cannot truly be sure, he will deliver
what is necessary at this level rather than bringing in someone a bit older, but someone
definitely better.
Sure, that may need even more money to be spent, depending on which player we are talking
about, but for the quality Maguire brings this seems too much.
We all know the club can handle it, but just because it can it does not mean
it should do it.
-------------------------------------------
Giuliani says Trump is heard on only one out of 183 seized Cohen tapes - Duration: 4:45.
President Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani has said that the FBI has 183 secret recordings made by Michael Cohen, but that the President is only heard in one of them
Guiliani explained in a Sunday interview with Face The Nation that investigators had shared the recordings with Trump's legal team to review and waive attorney-client privilege after seizing them from Cohen in April
On Wednesday, Cohen's legal team leaked one tape, a covert recording of Trump and Cohen discussing a payment to the National Enquirer to secure the rights to former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal's claims of an affair with Trump
Now Guiliani says that that recording is the only one of the seized tapes in which Trump himself is heard, with the rest being conversations between Cohen and third parties, including journalists whom he secretly recorded
RELATED ARTICLES Previous 1 Next Fox News calls out Giuliani for calling Michael Cohen a
Rudy Giuliani has his own 'covfefe' moment by tweeting the. Share this article Share 'We know of something like 183 unique conversations on tape,' Giuliani said
'One of those is with the president of the United States. That's the three-minute one involving- involving the McDougal payment- AMI-McDougal payment
'There are 12 others, maybe 11 or 12 others out of the 183, in which the president is discussed at any length by Cohen, mostly with reporters,' Giuliani continued
The President's lawyer added that he had no knowledge of any other tapes that were not related to Cohen's work for Trump, which federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York may have seized from Cohen
'There are then an untold number of other tapes. That do have no relation to us. Meaning President Trump
That have to do I guess what the Southern District originally raided him for,' Giuliani said
The investigation into Cohen is looking into allegations of bank fraud, wire fraud and violations of campaign finance law - suspicions which may be largely tied to Cohen's taxi business, which has no relation to Trump
'Those tapes, I don't know what's on those nor - now if they related it to us the government would have to give it to us
The government has been totally ethical about this,' Giuliani said. 'There's a lot there for them to investigate
And you know when you just look at a box you can't tell what it contains but I sure wouldn't want to have that box there in the FBI has possession of it with me
' Giuliani also said in the interview that Trump could soon decide whether to speak with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who for over a year has been investigating any possible links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government
'We have negotiations going on with them. We have an outstanding offer to them' to participate in an interview, Giuliani said
'They haven't responded in about a week to 10 days. I don't hold that against them I think they've got a lot going on like we do
' Giuliani said Trump could make a decision this week or next on whether to sit for an interview
Trump has repeatedly insisted that he's willing to be interviewed by Mueller's team
But Giuliani has said Trump's legal team is less enthusiastic because Mueller may lay a perjury trap, using anything Trump says that contradicts with another witness statement as a pretext for laying charges
Guiliani would not discuss the conditions his team is requesting for Trump to participate in an interview, but hinted that the President's legal team was interested in limiting the discussion to events before the election
He dismissed Mueller's interest in obstruction of justice charges for Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey as legally flimsy
'We don't see the legal basis for a president obstructing by merely taking an action in firing somebody that he had every right to fire
And about 10 good reasons to fire. So we don't just acknowledge though the basis for that,' Giuliani said
'But, you know, we might consider a few questions in that area also.'
-------------------------------------------
For Columbia Fall's Matt Triplett, bull riding is a family affair - Duration: 2:33.
For more infomation >> For Columbia Fall's Matt Triplett, bull riding is a family affair - Duration: 2:33. -------------------------------------------
Times publisher warned Trump his rhetoric against media is 'divisive' and 'dangerous' - Duration: 6:29.
The publisher of the New York Times says he told President Trump during a meeting at the White House that his language toward the media is "not just divisive but increasingly dangerous
" A.G. Sulzberger said he gave the president a stern warning that his rhetoric could lead to journalists being physically harmed, according to a statement provided to ABC News
"I told him that although the phrase 'fake news' is untrue and harmful, I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists 'the enemy of the people
' I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence," Sulzberger said
"Enemy of the people" is a phrase -- which has Soviet Union roots -- Trump often uses toward the media
The statement by the Times came in response to a tweet by the president Sunday morning
He tweeted that he had a "very good" meeting with A.G. Sulzberger, and said the two spent time talking about what Trump repeatedly calls "fake news
" "Had a very good and interesting meeting at the White House with A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher of the New York Times," Trump tweeted from Bedminster, New Jersey
"Spent much time talking about the vast amounts of Fake News being put out by the media & how that Fake News has morphed into phrase, "Enemy of the People
" Sad!" In the statement sent to ABC News, a spokesperson for the New York Times said Trump requested a meeting with Sulzberger at the White House on July 20 to discuss "concerns about coverage
" Trump often criticizes the Times' coverage of the White House –- for which it won a Pulitzer Prize -- and gave it the nickname the "failing New York Times
" The meeting, which is commonplace for media executives to have with the White House, was supposed to be off the record, at the request of the president's aides, but Trump's tweet allowed Sulzberger to speak on the record about their conversation
Sulzberger says he also told Trump during their meeting that his hostile words against the press were common in undemocratic regimes where journalists are killed
"I repeatedly stressed that this is particularly true abroad, where the president's rhetoric is being used by some regimes to justify sweeping crackdowns on journalists
I warned that it was putting lives at risk, that it was undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it was eroding one of our country's greatest exports: a commitment to free speech and a free press," Sulzberger said
"Throughout the conversation, I emphasized that if President Trump, like previous presidents, was upset with coverage of his administration he was, of course, free to tell the world," he added
"I made clear repeatedly that I was not asking for him to soften his attacks on The Times if he felt our coverage was unfair
Instead, I implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country
" Trump's seemingly unprompted tweet about the New York Times meeting comes in the wake of the White House's decision last week to bar a CNN reporter from covering an event because they took issue with her questioning
Bill Shine, the White House's deputy chief of staff for communications, argued that they never used the word "ban" against Collins, although in a statement the White House says they made it clear to the reporter she would "not be welcome to participate" in event coverage
The White House Correspondents Association, made up of members of the press who regularly cover the White House, called the incident "inappropriate
" "This type of retaliation is wholly inappropriate, wrong-headed, and weak. It cannot stand," WHCA President Olivier Knox said
In the hours since the New York Times response, Trump has continued to attack the media on Twitter, including the "dying newspaper industry," "Amazon Washington Post" and "failing New York Times
" The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, not Amazon.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét