Another common strategy employed by the bi-national same-sex couples in my study was
attempting to attain a student or F-1 visa. The F-1 is a nonimmigrant visa for academic students
who have been accepted by a “Student and Exchange Visitor Program” certified school (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security). In order to gain acceptance, prospective students must
adhere to the school’s admission requirements, including completing and covering the cost of
placement tests, as well as providing evidence of sufficient financial assets to support their
the school issues a “Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Status” also known as the I-20
form, and the applicant must pay the I-901 SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information
System) Fee, which cost $200 at the time of this writing, before being able to apply for the F-1
visa. The F-1 visa, in turn, costs an additional $160 plus an issuance fee that varies depending on
the applicant’s nationality (U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of
State). However, acceptance by a certified school, I-20 issuance, payment of the I-901 and the
visa fees neither guarantee the issuance of the visa nor entry into the United States. That is
because, at the time of the mandatory visa interview (for those 14 to 79 years of age), visa
issuance can be denied. What is more, immigration officers may also deny entry at the border,
regardless of visa status (Neumayer 2006).
Among my sample, six spouses applied to institutes of higher education, and another one
considered changing her status to a student visa as one of her options. Out of the six applications,
only two received the F-1 visa and gained entry. As per the visa process I described above, the
applicants who were denied had already been accepted by different institutions, had received
their I-20 forms, and paid both the required and non-refundable fees, but were denied visas
during the interview process. Ricardo expressed immense frustration with the process, doubting
the fairness of the immigration system because he “had all the paperwork, all the proof of
financial support, but they did not believe [him] and [he] was still denied” a visa even after he
had already been acceptance into a community college in the Northwest of the United States. The
only applicants who were able to attain a visa and gain entry as students were applicants who
identified as white, while all the denied applicants were non-white Latin Americans.
Student visas, if granted, would allow couples to stay together while hoping for a change
Paige, who reentered the country to pursue a second graduate degree, discussed her resentment
for having to incur additional and, from her point of view, unnecessary educational costs as well
as the indignity of being unable to share the household expenses because international students
are disallowed to work off campus, or for more than 20 hours a week on campus. In the case of
Pablo, difficulties emerged because he gained acceptance into a school in a different state from
where his husband resided. Therefore, while they were both living in the same country, their
relationship continued to be long-distance.
In addition to attempting to apply for the F-1 visa, many spouses tried to enter the
country temporarily as tourists. However, attaining tourist visas also proved to be challenging.
Tourist visas were meant as a temporary strategy to share some of the travel costs with their U.S.
spouses, and as an opportunity to meet their spouses’ friends and families in the United States.
However, it became apparent that a previous visa denial had an adverse impact on future
applications.
Carolina was denied student and tourist visas in succeeding fashion. As an alternative,
she attempted to apply for a Canadian visa, thereby reducing her wife’s travel costs. However,
her Canadian visa was similarly denied. Likewise, Miguel and Ricardo were also denied multiple
tourist visas. Complicating matters, even if attaining a visa was not a problem, the border
crossing process could be daunting, as seven spouses disclosed. Ashley described a traumatic
experience while crossing the border in which she felt discriminated against and intimidated.
Border agents ultimately denied her entry:
One time we were trying to cross together, and it was horrible. I lied and said I was going shopping in the States, and the woman was really cruel and did not believe me. She interrogated us, and she kept going: “we’ve got a problem here because you lied, and there will be consequences.” And I said: “Yeah, I did,” and she said, “Why did you do that?” I said, “Because you don’t make it
easy for people who really care about one another to be together.” So, because of these types of experiences that we had, it created a lot of fear, and, even this time, when we’re finally selling the house and we’re going to return to the U.S., I’m afraid for us to cross together. So, we will do the same as the last time where she’ll drive in the RV, and I’ll come by car the next day.
As the bi-national same-sex couples started to grasp the extent of the barriers they faced
as well as the few immigration options that were available, their commitment to one another
remained steadfast even while they feared for their futures. For the foreign spouses who were in
the United States with an H1-B visa, the stability of their employment was uncertain.
Additionally, for the few spouses who were in the country but lacked legal immigration status,
departing meant that they would be unable to re-enter the United States. On the other hand,
spouses residing abroad could face immigration discrimination. Accordingly, it was unsurprising
that one of the most employed strategies was international relocation.