Inspired by a thread in K-1 forum

[RaspberrySwirl 20]

One more thing... If you're seriously interested in the subject and considering pursuing a hardship waiver on the in-person meeting issue, be sure and check out this USCIS Link before filing your petition. It shows the record of a number of final decisions issued by the USCIS regarding K-1 petitions. Theoretically, those cover all kinds of issues, but you'll see that a large number of the K-1 decisions had to do with people who thought they should be eligible for a waiver of the in-person meeting requirement, but the USCIS judged otherwise.

Be sure your case has fact that are significantly different than any of those that they've already denied. If the facts of your case look like one of the published cases that were denied, they will most likely follow precedent and deny yours, as well.

Inspired by this post in http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2208 thread, I decided to browse through some of the denials.

Some weird stuff in there, I have to admit

http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/adminde...605_10d6101.pdf

In addition, the petitioner indicated that he would be required by an airline to purchase two tickets for travel owing to his weight.

[Kajikit 65]

That's not weird... that's an expensive fact of life and a real bar to travel for some people (like my husband!)

There are lots of people who are medically unable to travel for various reasons, but the USCIS doesn't care.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

That's not weird... that's an expensive fact of life and a real bar to travel for some people (like my husband!)

There are lots of people who are medically unable to travel for various reasons, but the USCIS doesn't care.

I'm with the Swirl. It is weird. If you can't (or won't) make the effort to visit your potential spouse in person, then you have no business getting married. Religious restrictions aside.

Edited February 15, 2006 by rch99

[Jaylen Brit 0]

Even with arranged marriages the parties meet beforehand - both sets of parents insist on it usually..

Real illness as a bar to travel (if a doctor prohibits it) IS a real cause for hardship I'd say.

I havent read thru the links yet tho - no time yet! Anyone got some to cut n paste for us busy peeps?

[aussiewench 9]

Real illness as a bar to travel (if a doctor prohibits it) IS a real cause for hardship I'd say.

True but what are the chances of both parties being unable to travel under those circumstances and qualifying for the hardship.

[Jaylen Brit 0]

I agree it'd be unusual but if the USC was medically barred from travel and the beneficiary couldnt AFFORD it (thus not touching the support issues as its the USC who must provide support for the non-USC) that surely would qualify?

[aussiewench 9]

ROFLMAO This is my favorite

On appeal the petitioner states that she travelled to India to meet her fiance but at the time of her visit, he was out of the country.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

ROFLMAO This is my favorite

On appeal the petitioner states that she travelled to India to meet her fiance but at the time of her visit, he was out of the country.

Gee. Every time I go to my spouses country she's not there. Is she trying to tell me something?

[aussiewench 9]

I agree it'd be unusual but if the USC was medically barred from travel and the beneficiary couldnt AFFORD it (thus not touching the support issues as its the USC who must provide support for the non-USC) that surely would qualify?

Nope as finacially not being able to travel to meet is not accepted as a hardship.

[Jaylen Brit 0]

Harsh

[pax 0]

I don't really think it's harsh. If the petitioner cannot afford to arrange a meeting, how can s/he support the beneficiary in the States, as s/he is legally obligated to do?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I don't really think it's harsh. If the petitioner cannot afford to arrange a meeting, how can s/he support the beneficiary in the States, as s/he is legally obligated to do?

yup

[Jaylen Brit 0]

well I said the NON-USA couldnt afford it -if u see my hypothetical example it specifically said NOT the USC - because that would impact on the support issues - and rightly so.

[pax 0]

Why couldn't the USC, then, pay the costs for the beneficiary to come to the States or a third country to meet?

[Jaylen Brit 0]

good point, hadnt occurred to me to do it that way,