Inspired by a thread in K-1 forum

[CarolineM 0]

This is just me....totally a PERSONAL opinion so don't flame me.

I have had boyfriends that I met on the internet, (One I actually almost married...) so I do understand the connection you can make with people you haven't met.

I, however, could NEVER ever ever ever marry someone I hadn't spent any time IN PERSON with...I think that the meeting requirement is a really good idea...IMHO

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In this electronic age of long-distance communication don't you think they should make some allowances for contact OTHER than face-to-face?

No.

This is just me....totally a PERSONAL opinion so don't flame me.

I have had boyfriends that I met on the internet, (One I actually almost married...) so I do understand the connection you can make with people you haven't met.

I, however, could NEVER ever ever ever marry someone I hadn't spent any time IN PERSON with...I think that the meeting requirement is a really good idea...IMHO

You're a horrible and malevolent person for even thinking that!

[Kajikit 65]

Give me one GOOD reason why not?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Give me one GOOD reason why not?

Because I wish to deny happiness from as many people as possible.

[pax 0]

I'm with the Agent on this one--as someone who met and, yes, fell in love with her sweetie online.

I would never have agreed to file the I-129F without meeting Ewen first. I wanted to see him, have him stay in my house for a while, go grocery shopping and visiting my parents with him. And I don't know how anyone could really think that they could hack a marriage without doing this for even a little, even once.

The requirements aren't ridiculous. They don't stipulate that you have to have spent a certain amount of time together, or lived together. You have to meet. Once. If it's for 12 hours or 12 years, they don't care.

[irishgirl73 0]

Give me one GOOD reason why not?

Because I wish to deny happiness from as many people as possible.

classic!

I'm with the Agent on this one--as someone who met and, yes, fell in love with her sweetie online.

I would never have agreed to file the I-129F without meeting Ewen first. I wanted to see him, have him stay in my house for a while, go grocery shopping and visiting my parents with him. And I don't know how anyone could really think that they could hack a marriage without doing this for even a little, even once.

The requirements aren't ridiculous. They don't stipulate that you have to have spent a certain amount of time together, or lived together. You have to meet. Once. If it's for 12 hours or 12 years, they don't care.

I feel the opposite-If I hadn't met my man I wouldn't be sitting here miserable missing him, I wouldn't have applied for a petition that is taking FORVER to approve..........I would have been better off having never met him. I would have met someone a little more "geographically desirable"

I am kidding-hope everyone knows that

Pax-I totally agree with ya!

[Andy 2]

Maybe because that should be blindingly obvious to anyone filing for a fiance/e visa?

I don't think anyone here is missing the point that it's hard, if not impossible, to establish a genuine relationship without having met in person.

Judging by many of the issues that crop up regularly here, I would have to say that what is blindingly obvious to many of us, seems to entirely elude comprehension in others - particularly amongst those perhaps starting the process and who don't have the benefit of any prior experience or understanding of how the immigration system works and what issues are at stake in it.

What many have seemed to erroneously focus on in this issue - and I don't just refer to this specific thread but others that have arisen on the same subject in the past - is the financial support question. At the time the I-129F is processed and approved, the USCIS have no interest in, knowledge of, or means to assess, the question of whether the petitioner can support the beneficiary adequately. Thus a contention that an I-129F denial would come due to a possible inability to provide adequate support arising from financial hardship grounds where a meeting hasn't taken place is not correct.

It would be, as you rightly infer, on the grounds that there was absent sufficient evidence to support the intention to marry. Nothing more, nor less.

[almaty 19]

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.

[pedroh 21]

This is just me....totally a PERSONAL opinion so don't flame me.

I have had boyfriends that I met on the internet, (One I actually almost married...) so I do understand the connection you can make with people you haven't met.

I, however, could NEVER ever ever ever marry someone I hadn't spent any time IN PERSON with...I think that the meeting requirement is a really good idea...IMHO

DEALT

true.. i'd never marry someone whom I've never met before..

[Fandango 1,439]

I would never ever marry someone I never met. Look at some of the 'true love' horror stories here!

But I'ma say it...and it might sound horrible, but it's the way I feel, so oh well.....'emotional' connections & whatnot are great, but if there's no physical spark, then it aint all that (FOR ME). And how could you know if you had that spark if you never met?

[john_and_marlene 162]

But what if the USC can't travel (medical reasons) and the foreign fiance(e) comes from one of those countries where you need an invitation for a B2-visa and his/her request for a visitor-visa is denied on the grounds that she could decide to stay?

Or similarly, what if the USC can't travel and the foreign partner is denied entry at POE on VWP or B2 based on lack of financial resources or lack of prove that she/he needs to return to home country?

In both cases, the partner has shown a willingness to visit, but was denied a visa or entry which is not her/his fault. I would think that USCIS should make an exception in these cases since the fault lies with USCIS.

In the ONE hardship case that I have heard of being approved, the USC couldn't travel for medical reasons and they showed proof that the OP had been refused visas to the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Give me one GOOD reason why not?

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2482

[CarolineM 0]

Exactly.

Gosh that is possibly the saddest thing I've read on here.

[almaty 19]

true

[zyggy 9]

But what if the USC can't travel (medical reasons) and the foreign fiance(e) comes from one of those countries where you need an invitation for a B2-visa and his/her request for a visitor-visa is denied on the grounds that she could decide to stay?

Or similarly, what if the USC can't travel and the foreign partner is denied entry at POE on VWP or B2 based on lack of financial resources or lack of prove that she/he needs to return to home country?

In both cases, the partner has shown a willingness to visit, but was denied a visa or entry which is not her/his fault. I would think that USCIS should make an exception in these cases since the fault lies with USCIS.

And this is the one case where I have seen a waiver being granted. The Petitioner couldn't travel outside the US or Canada and the beneficiary was refused a visitor visa from both the US and Canada... in this case the USCIS did grant the waiver.