Fiancee Visa for an arranged marriage. Possible?

[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?

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.

Thanks, pushbrk

So should i withdraw my petition ? Will i just have to go back to Cebu and start over with the I-129f and pay the $455 again?

[pushbrk 13,639]

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.

Thanks, pushbrk

So should i withdraw my petition ? Will i just have to go back to Cebu and start over with the I-129f and pay the $455 again?

You could send a withdrawal letter as a response to the RFE, yes. The good news is that the fee went down to $340. After your next visit, you'll need to include a waiver request to waive the multiple petition filing rule. It's a simple explanation of why you're filing a second petition with a sentence asking them to waive any applicable filing limitations. They'll do it. No worries.

A smart plan would be to bring back the signed G325a, new letter of intent and passport photo when you return from your upcoming trip.

[Messybrownhair 251]

If they are pushing thru with it, then goodluck!

It seems that you have already made your mind that it can be done and will be done even before you posted, so forgive those who are doubtful about it. If I were you/them, I would just consult a lawyer.

All the best!

[Fandango 1,440]

Question 18 on the 129F form states the following:

"Describe the circumstances under which you met. If you have not personally met each other, explain how the relationship was established. ....... Explain also in detail any reasons you may have for requesting that the requirement that you and your fiance(e) must have met should not apply to you.

So technically, there doesn't have to be proof of meeting.

If there is someone reading who was in a similar circumstance, what did you put in this section.

What they're saying here is if they haven't met, explain why. Nothing there saying you don't have to meet, or that the petition will be approved despite that fact.

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.

Ok, so what's your religious basis? You can't say your religion precludes them from meeting; they already have.

What you have 'found' that you were looking for, is a bit of a false promise; one which is going to cost these two a lot of time. You came here asking questions, and the very knowledgeable members gave you facts, not supposition. I would be leary if I were you to hang your hopes on some random PMs - taking advice via pm is quite risky - there's no one to correct misinformation.

If you want to pin your/their future on some private message, then go right ahead...but do report back and tell us how that all works out for them.

Thanks for everyones input. sol

We just wanted to know the options. As I stated earlier, the two met more than two years ago so that trip might not work, which is why I asked the question regarding the type of hookup they had.

They will be able to meet in July so they will have photos then, but if we are able to apply now, they would have a solid head start on the process

Also, if you are not the USC, you have no place in the application process.

But here's the coup d`etat: Obviously the couple will not be married by July if they are pursuing a fiance visa. So you have just outright admitted that your whole rationale to file early despite not meeting req's is to 'get a solid head start' on the process. Clearly, nothing to do with the arranged marriage angle - they've met before, they will again....they just don't want to wait to file correctly. Wah.

Btw, since that's the case, arguing for an exemption based on religious grounds is actually lying. Which could incur a lifetime ban.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Lisa C

[JimVaPhuong 4,864]

You could send a withdrawal letter as a response to the RFE, yes. The good news is that the fee went down to $340. After your next visit, you'll need to include a waiver request to waive the multiple petition filing rule. It's a simple explanation of why you're filing a second petition with a sentence asking them to waive any applicable filing limitations. They'll do it. No worries.

A smart plan would be to bring back the signed G325a, new letter of intent and passport photo when you return from your upcoming trip.

If that was the only petition he ever filed then he shouldn't need to ask for a waiver of the multiple filing limitations. That would only be necessary if the first petition was approved within the previous two years. His petition isn't going to be approved, even if he doesn't withdraw it.

[JimVaPhuong 4,864]

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.

You've discovered something very important about how VJ works, and a prime example of when it fails.

VJ contains the collected knowledge and experience of many people. Answers you get here are going to range from 100% based on facts and knowledge to 100% based on conjecture and opinion. You can usually figure out which category a response mostly falls in by whether or not it crumbles under the critique of other members. The responses that hold up to scrutiny are the ones that are based on facts and knowledge.

You have just told us that there are three active VJ members who have successfully gotten a waiver of the two year meeting requirement based on the "social customs" clause. In two years of reading this board I don't recall ever seeing anyone post that they were successful in getting a waiver on this basis, but I've seen numerous people post that have tried and were denied.

VJ fails when members succeed at bucking the tide, and don't come back and share their experience with the rest of the members. The experience of those three members would be enormously useful to the other members who are in the same boat, but for some reason they don't feel any need to share that experience with others. It's selfish to only take and not give back to a community like this. Please don't be one of these people. Regardless of the outcome of your case, please come back and let everyone know how it went. If you succeed then I, pushbrk, and the rest of the members here will be lining up to congratulate you, and bookmarking your post to share with others in the future. You might also try to persuade those other three members to share their experience. Without confirmation from people who have succeeded, we can only conclude that this tactic nearly always fails.

[TwoCats 55]

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.

They are allowed that initial meeting BEFORE they get engaged, to ensure compatibility.

They will be able to meet in July so they will have photos then, but if we are able to apply now, they would have a solid head start on the process

These statements confuse me.

First: The claim of them 'meeting' at all is based on them both being in the same location at the same time, but they may not have even seen or spoken to one another? I don't even think this qualifies as a meeting. I've been in Chicago Union Station at the same time they filmed a movie, that doesn't mean I've MET any of the stars, or the director, or anyone else who was in the building at the same time.

Second: Highlighted portion. It's one or the other. They are either allowed to meet, or they are. Which one is it?

[pushbrk 13,639]

If that was the only petition he ever filed then he shouldn't need to ask for a waiver of the multiple filing limitations. That would only be necessary if the first petition was approved within the previous two years. His petition isn't going to be approved, even if he doesn't withdraw it.

You're mixing two separate issues. The memorandum states, "If the petitioner has filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any time in the past, or previously had a K-1 visa petition approved within two years prior to the filing of the current petition, the petitioner must request a waiver."

Two approvals gets you in the multiple filer database. Filing two or more EVER, requires the waiver request.

Not sure if this link still works. I'm pasting from my saved PDF.

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2006/imbra072106.pdf

[JimVaPhuong 4,864]

You're mixing two separate issues. The memorandum states, "If the petitioner has filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any time in the past, or previously had a K-1 visa petition approved within two years prior to the filing of the current petition, the petitioner must request a waiver."

Two approvals gets you in the multiple filer database. Filing two or more EVER, requires the waiver request.

Not sure if this link still works. I'm pasting from my saved PDF.

http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/Static_Files_Memoranda/Archives%201998-2008/2006/imbra072106.pdf

That's why I said "If that was the only petition he ever filed". He would not have filed two or more petitions previously. He would not have had a petition approved within the past two years. He would be filing his second petition after having his first petition denied or withdrawn. If he files a third petition then he'd need a waiver.

[pushbrk 13,639]

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.

Let me make it short. I don't believe them. If I were you, I wouldn't either. You've said the couple can meet in July, so they can meet. You've said they want to file now to get a head start. Clearly anything they get a clergyman to affirm in order to start without meeting within the past two years, at best will fail and cost them months of waisted time. At worst, the foreigner never enters the USA. If you don't believe the senior members here, please make certain they consult a qualified immigration attorney. Never lie on immigration forms or to immigration officials. What you are proposing is outright lying, no question about it whatsoever.

[pushbrk 13,639]

That's why I said "If that was the only petition he ever filed". He would not have filed two or more petitions previously. He would not have had a petition approved within the past two years. He would be filing his second petition after having his first petition denied or withdrawn. If he files a third petition then he'd need a waiver.

Oh, sorry. I get where you're coming from but USCIS has been interpreting this so that the second petition filed requires a waiver. I agree, that's not what either the law or the memo says but it's what happens. No problem really, as long as you add a couple sentences to the cover letter.