Fiancee Visa for an arranged marriage. Possible?

[master4g 0]

Change "might not work" to "definitely will not work"...

Someone who was in an identical situation (besides that fiancee was from France) has PM'd me with what he submitted. He had never met his fiancee and just submitted an affidavit from his religious leader and they were approved.

Thanks everyone for their replies, I have found what I was looking for.

[amykathleen2005 441]

Exactly, so in this case, they would...

1. File the petition

2. Get an RFE

3. Reply unsatisfactorily or not at all

4. Get notice the petition was denied for lack of primary evidence meeting in the two years prior to filing

It's not RFE or Denial. It's RFE and THEN Denial.

That is if the reviewer is in a kind mood. I've heard that they sometimes will just outright deny the petition if it is missing this section.

[Tero 105]

They would be denied. If they get an RFE for proof of meeting, and submit evidence of a meeting that occurred after the petition was submitted, then the petition would be denied. They must prove they met within two years prior to the filing of the petition.

They same applies to evidence proving any of the requirements. You can respond to an RFE with evidence you obtained after the petition was filed (a birth certificate to prove US citizenship, for example), but only if the evidence proves that the requirement was met at the time the petition was filed. If the evidence proves the requirement was met after the petition was filed (a certificate of naturalization issued after the petition was filed, for example) then the petition must be denied.

[Tero 105]

Someone who was in an identical situation (besides that fiancee was from France) has PM'd me with what he submitted. He had never met his fiancee and just submitted an affidavit from his religious leader and they were approved.

Thanks everyone for their replies, I have found what I was looking for.

Glad to hear that. Good luck!

[pushbrk 13,641]

Someone who was in an identical situation (besides that fiancee was from France) has PM'd me with what he submitted. He had never met his fiancee and just submitted an affidavit from his religious leader and they were approved.

Thanks everyone for their replies, I have found what I was looking for.

Good luck with that. You've already clearly indicated that meeting is NOT forbidden, you HAVE met already and that it was simply more than two years ago. Please come back and let us know how things work out. Do you realize that lying (material misrepresentation) on an immigration form or to an immigration official can result in a lifetime ban from entering the USA. (For the foreigner, of course.)

[master4g 0]

Good luck with that. You've already clearly indicated that meeting is NOT forbidden, you HAVE met already and that it was simply more than two years ago. Please come back and let us know how things work out. Do you realize that lying (material misrepresentation) on an immigration form or to an immigration official can result in a lifetime ban from entering the USA. (For the foreigner, of course.)

There is no lying involved. Photo or no photo, they are still engaged, and the Fiancee visa is for people who are engaged. The application would simply state the process of our marriage system and that we are not allowed to date before marriage, so they don't have photos of them together, or both of their names on a shared vacation ticket, or even phone conversations for that case. Some westerners have a hard time believing it, but they aren't even allowed to talk to each other before they get married. They are allowed that initial meeting BEFORE they get engaged, to ensure compatibility. However, once they are engaged, it doesn't allow for them to talk each other to sleep each night (or talk at all for that case. They can however allowed to talk business related things like how they plan on doing their wedding once she arrives here, or how they should go ahead and apply for the visa)

Edit: For some reason, people who have gone through similar situations are shy to post directly to the forum. I have received 2 more PM's from people who are saying that it wasn't a problem for them.

Edited February 9, 2011 by master4g

[pushbrk 13,641]

There is no lying involved. Photo or no photo, they are still engaged, and the Fiancee visa is for people who are engaged. The application would simply state the process of our marriage system and that we are not allowed to date before marriage, so they don't have photos of them together, or both of their names on a shared vacation ticket, or even phone conversations for that case. Some westerners have a hard time believing it, but they aren't even allowed to talk to each other before they get married. They are allowed that initial meeting BEFORE they get engaged, to ensure compatibility. However, once they are engaged, it doesn't allow for them to talk each other to sleep each night (or talk at all for that case. They can however allowed to talk business related things like how they plan on doing their wedding once she arrives here, or how they should go ahead and apply for the visa)

Have you looked at the I-129F? Having photos together isn't the issue. Evidence of meeting in the past two years is the issue. Dating isn't the issue either. You are required to explain why the meeting requirement doesn't apply to you. It does apply, so you cannot possibly convince them it doesn't.

From the I-129F instructions. Enlargements added for emphasis.

and have met in person within two years before your filing of this petition unless:

A. The requirement to meet your fiancé(e) in person would violate strict and long-established customs of your or your fiancé(e)'s foreign culture or social practice; or

B. It is established that the requirement to personally meet your fiancé(e) would result in extreme hardship to you.

So, what I'm referring to with regard to "lying" is that unless you say meeting in person would violate strict and long established customs of your fiancee's culture or social practice, you won't meet the standard. If you do say that, you'll be lying.

Edited February 9, 2011 by pushbrk

[master4g 0]

pushbrk, thanks for all your posts. However, I well end with this final reply as I am not here to argue and you seem to be in quite an argumentative mode, and are "try to prove me wrong". It is quite evident that you have no experience with the type of marriage I have been talking about. Orthodoxly, the two are NOT, and I repeat NOT, allowed to meet before they are married. They are allowed that initial meeting BEFORE they get engaged. When I said that they met earlier, they didn't go on dates or anything of that sort, they just happened to be at the same place at the same time. In Aug 2007, they were both at my wedding in England and it is even possible that they didn't see each other or talk to each other then.

[daveconnie 0]

Hi i met in person with my fiancee in 2006 and filed the I-129f Aug 2010 it took such a long time because we were waiting for her annulment in the philippines to complete. i submitted all the required evidence and included a true statement that i could not take time off from my job to meet with connie again, but that we had been in constant contact all this time with copies of letters IM's etc. I recieved a letter from USCIS stating that my evidence is insufficient. because i hadn't met with connie in the last 2 years from the filing date. Is there any hope for us? If I go ahead and risk losing my job and go back to Cebu next week and mail the proof before the March 8, 2011 deadline they have given me will it still be denied?

[TBoneTX 47,582]

Master4g: The question seems to be whether they have met in person in the last two years as of the date when the I-129F petition is filed. What pushbrk is probably saying is that if they have, that's fine; if they haven't met within that time frame (that is, it's been longer than two years), and they state on the form that they have met within that time frame, it's material misrepresentation. Read again what JimVaPhuong last posted. If I'm mistaken in my analysis, pushbrk will post a clarification.

Edited February 9, 2011 by TBoneTX

[pushbrk 13,641]

Hi i met in person with my fiancee in 2006 and filed the I-129f Aug 2010 it took such a long time because we were waiting for her annulment in the philippines to complete. i submitted all the required evidence and included a true statement that i could not take time off from my job to meet with connie again, but that we had been in constant contact all this time with copies of letters IM's etc. I recieved a letter from USCIS stating that my evidence is insufficient. because i hadn't met with connie in the last 2 years from the filing date. Is there any hope for us? If I go ahead and risk losing my job and go back to Cebu next week and mail the proof before the March 8, 2011 deadline they have given me will it still be denied?

Yes, it will still be denied. The evidence you need is that you met between Aug 2008 and Aug 2010. You didn't, so there is no such evidence.

[Tero 105]

This is really getting ridiculous! We are not at war here and there is no medal given to the CORRECT person. The OP stated that he had gotten what he wanted, why do we keep bothering him. He needed some advice, we gave him from what we know, it is left for him to sift through and decide.

Let's not make this a do or die affair. He's gotten what he wanted, just wish him luck and let it go. No one HAS to be right all the time. Here's my olive branch of peace

[pushbrk 13,641]

Master4g: The question seems to be whether they have met in person in the last two years as of the date when the I-129F petition is filed. What pushbrk is probably saying is that if they have, that's fine; if they haven't met within that time frame (that is, it's been longer than two years), and they state on the form that they have met within that time frame, it's material misrepresentation. Read again what JimVaPhuong last posted. If I'm mistaken in my analysis, pushbrk will post a clarification.

No, that's not my point. I'm going by the first sentence in Master4g's first post in the thread, where he writes, "Hello, In our culture/religion, premarital dating is discouraged." If by "discouraged", he really means that to meet in person would "violate strict and long-established customs of your or your fiancé(e)'s foreign culture or social practice;" rather than it is simply "discouraged" then all is well. However, if they represent that meeting would "violate strict and long-established customs of your or your fiancé(e)'s foreign culture or social practice;" when it is really only "discouraged" then THAT would be a misrepresentation.

USCIS adjudicators have seen plenty of this kind of scenario before and they know the difference between discouraged and strictly forbidden with regard to the meeting requirements, meaning they know in which specific religious sects "forbidden" is actually the case. In reality, I expect the petition would simply be denied, and the couple would be allowed to file again, without prejudice after meeting.

If the OP knows the couple are practicing members of a religious sect that forbids the bride and groom to meet before the marriage date, (and that means even after she get to the USA) then it would be helpful if he so stated instead of saying dating was discouraged.

[TBoneTX 47,582]

Good clarification.

[pushbrk 13,641]

This is really getting ridiculous! We are not at war here and there is no medal given to the CORRECT person. The OP stated that he had gotten what he wanted, why do we keep bothering him. He needed some advice, we gave him from what we know, it is left for him to sift through and decide.

Let's not make this a do or die affair. He's gotten what he wanted, just wish him luck and let it go. No one HAS to be right all the time. Here's my olive branch of peace

We continue the discussion as necessary because, as you can see, others with similar interests read along and use the discussions for reference.