How to get a waiver on clause 18 of form I-129F

[DakotaK1 1]

Well fact is this person wont get the Visa,cos the requirments are not there.

All the other stuff is off topic!

[TimsDaisy 0]

Well fact is this person wont get the Visa,cos the requirments are not there.

All the other stuff is off topic!

How can you say it is a fact? Do we KNOW yet that there are no grounds for a waiver? No, I don't think we do.

It's UNLIKELY at this point, yes, but not conclusively "no."

[DakotaK1 1]

I want to see that happen,waiting on a replay from this person to tell us it worked out. There are rules we all had to follow and I dont think differances should be made with anybody we should be all treated the same way no matter what religion or race.

[eric_and_teresa 10]

Well fact is this person wont get the Visa,cos the requirments are not there.

All the other stuff is off topic!

How can you be so sure? There are exceptions for this specific requirement: cultural/religious reasons or extreme hardship to meet in person. They have a valid reason to apply for the waiver.

Like Ramos96 said, the burden is theirs, to prove with documents the cultural or religious reasons they follow that are keeping them from meeting in person. Wheter they will get the Visa or not, that's something neither of us know.

And about the other stuff that's off topic, I think you were the one who first brought it into this thread, and others are just replying to what you first said.

[pushbrk 13,616]

Well fact is this person wont get the Visa,cos the requirments are not there.

All the other stuff is off topic!

My point precisely. You preaching is off topic. So is our bickering about it.

As for grounds, I agree. The OP asked of other reasons besides the ones listed could be used to justify a waiver, so I doubt the potentially acceptable reasons are cogent in this case. They will need to meet before filing any petitions.

[TimsDaisy 0]

I want to see that happen,waiting on a replay from this person to tell us it worked out. There are rules we all had to follow and I dont think differances should be made with anybody we should be all treated the same way no matter what religion or race.

That's great - but the fact remains that there IS a procedure for obtaining a waiver for the meeting w/in 2 years requirement. I think we're all safe betters if we bet that it's VERY hard to get one, but the mechanism is there.

We'll see if the OP tries or what happens.

[The Way it Is 0]

I want to see that happen,waiting on a replay from this person to tell us it worked out. There are rules we all had to follow and I dont think differances should be made with anybody we should be all treated the same way no matter what religion or race.

That's great - but the fact remains that there IS a procedure for obtaining a waiver for the meeting w/in 2 years requirement. I think we're all safe betters if we bet that it's VERY hard to get one, but the mechanism is there.

We'll see if the OP tries or what happens.

You guys are doing this guy no good by saying that it is possible. It will NOT happen/ He will file the petition..they will send an RFE of evidence..it will be denied...if he decides to appeal..that will take six months and X amount of dollars...he will fail...and he is a year plus into the process and he will still need to meet in person. There is NO culture in the existing real world that does not allow two ppl to meet before getting married. If you know otherwise, then post it!!! Read the appeal decision at the USCIS...it will NOT happen...period!!! cuz THATS THE WAY IT IS.

[DakotaK1 1]

Thanks @the way it is. If he gets to bypass that I would be the first to complain. How often do you guys think that a couple busts their butt open to save their last cash to go see eachother to mee the requirments to finally get married etc???

If that would be a reason to bypass then I would say fine I am love sick I can bypass that also,same reason just a differant colour.

[Yodrak 7]

The Way it Is,

There was a fellow a couple of years back who posted a similar question at <alt.visa.us.marriage-based>. From Pakistan, if I remember correctly. He claimed to have religious and cultural grounds for not being able to meet his fiancee in advance of marriage. Everyone who replied to his posts told him what you are telling this OP - 'no way are you going to get approved without meeting your fiancee'.

His petition was approved, or so he reported back.

There is only 1 way to have a 100% guarantee of failure - don't try.

Yodrak

Many marriages in India are arranged in India by family members. I have met several people from India and other countries that met thru arranged marriages. None of them were prohibited from meeting or having a courtship with their fiancees after thae arrangement was made. As a metter of fact, I know of NO culture in the world that does not allow people to meet before marriage. One may exist somewhere, but I doubt if anyone knows of one.

The USCIS will see it the same way...no meeting, no visa. Dont waste you time or meney trying to get around this. People have tried and all have fialed except for a few due to severe medical conditions that prevent them from travelling to meet.

Who would want to marry someone without meeting them anyway.....that rhe WAY IT IS!!

[chasnik 0]

The 1st time we filed(notice 1st time) I had a lwayer who told me yes we can file without having met, because I am a single working mom, at the time I was a store manager and my job didnt permit me more than 5 days off in a row as I was sole contact, and my ex didnt permit me to take my 2 minor children out of the country. Now here we are on our 2nd filing(notice 2nd!!!). It got rejected because we had not met in the 2 years beforehand. My advice is dont even try it. That is one of the conditions, and Ive not seen much evidence that it gets waived. Im sure there are extreme cases where it does, but I dont believe it is a common thing. I would advise not wasting the money to file w/o all conditions being met.

[eric_and_teresa 10]

The 1st time we filed(notice 1st time) I had a lwayer who told me yes we can file without having met, because I am a single working mom, at the time I was a store manager and my job didnt permit me more than 5 days off in a row as I was sole contact, and my ex didnt permit me to take my 2 minor children out of the country. Now here we are on our 2nd filing(notice 2nd!!!). It got rejected because we had not met in the 2 years beforehand. My advice is dont even try it. That is one of the conditions, and Ive not seen much evidence that it gets waived. Im sure there are extreme cases where it does, but I dont believe it is a common thing. I would advise not wasting the money to file w/o all conditions being met.

You situation was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the OP's situation. Being a single working mom IS NOT AN EXCEPTION for the meeting in person requirement. Your lawyer was either very stupid or was trying to get money out of you, most likely. Sorry about that.

The way it is, I never said he'll get the waiver. I said, this requirement can be waived in 2 cases, and I didn't made that up, those exceptions were established by the USCIS.

B.

You and your fiancé(e) intend to marry within 90 daysof your fiancé(e) entering the United States, and areboth free to marry, and have met in person within twoyears before your filing of this petition unless:

The requirement to meet your fiancé(e) in personwould violate strict and long-established customs ofyour or your fiancé(e)'s foreign culture or socialpractice; or

(2) It is established that the requirement to personallymeet your fiancé(e) would result in extremehardship to you.

(Page No. 1 from 129F)

My point is people need to realize that yes, there are requirements that need to be there, but there are also EXCEPTIONS AND WAIVERS to some of those requirements, how is the OP going to prove their case fits into one of those exceptions and that they qualify for the waiver... that's something he'll have to figure out, and take the risk to do if he thinks he has enough means to prove it. Will he get it? I don't know.. but neither any of you know if he wont. I'm for sure not an expert in worldwide customs and religions, and I wouldn't there to say there is NO place in this world were you can't meet your spouse before getting married.

Anyway, the OP's question was answered by Yodrak, there has been in this forum ONE case where this exception has been applied and despite the fact of not meeting in person first, the visa was granted.

[Yodrak 7]

eric_and_teresa,

Please read my post again. You have misrepresented my post on more than one point.

Yodrak

.....

Anyway, the OP's question was answered by Yodrak, there has been in this forum ONE case where this exception has been applied and despite the fact of not meeting in person first, the visa was granted.

[eric_and_teresa 10]

eric_and_teresa,

Please read my post again. You have misrepresented my post on more than one point.

Yodrak

.....

Anyway, the OP's question was answered by Yodrak, there has been in this forum ONE case where this exception has been applied and despite the fact of not meeting in person first, the visa was granted.

Yodrak, I read your post again. The OP's question was if there were similar cases of couples not meeting in person first that got approved? You said you remember one person here who didn't meet before applying and got the visa, right? How did I miss your point? I think you missed my mine.

Just to make things clear, I'm not using your post to back up my previous posts, I'm saying there is a rule: Meeting in person. And there are 2 exceptions to that rule. Am I 100% sure if the USCIS approves petitions that fall into one of those exceptions I don't know. But the exceptions exist. That's all.

Wait.. I get it! It wasn't this specific forum, it was another visa forum? Well, that's irrelevant.

Edited May 8, 2007 by eric_and_teresa

[TracyTN 237]

eric_and_teresa,

Please read my post again. You have misrepresented my post on more than one point.

Yodrak

.....

Anyway, the OP's question was answered by Yodrak, there has been in this forum ONE case where this exception has been applied and despite the fact of not meeting in person first, the visa was granted.

Yodrak, I read your post again. The OP's question was if there were similar cases of couples not meeting in person first that got approved? You said you remember one person here who didn't meet before applying and got the visa, right? How did I miss your point? I think you missed my mine.

Just to make things clear, I'm not using your post to back up my previous posts, I'm saying there is a rule: Meeting in person. And there are 2 exceptions to that rule. Am I 100% sure if the USCIS approves petitions that fall into one of those exceptions I don't know. But the exceptions exist. That's all.

Wait.. I get it! It wasn't this specific forum, it was another visa forum? Well, that's irrelevant.

Yodrak said that the couple in the example had their petition approved - not that they received the visa.

[eric_and_teresa 10]

eric_and_teresa,

Please read my post again. You have misrepresented my post on more than one point.

Yodrak

.....

Anyway, the OP's question was answered by Yodrak, there has been in this forum ONE case where this exception has been applied and despite the fact of not meeting in person first, the visa was granted.

Yodrak, I read your post again. The OP's question was if there were similar cases of couples not meeting in person first that got approved? You said you remember one person here who didn't meet before applying and got the visa, right? How did I miss your point? I think you missed my mine.

Just to make things clear, I'm not using your post to back up my previous posts, I'm saying there is a rule: Meeting in person. And there are 2 exceptions to that rule. Am I 100% sure if the USCIS approves petitions that fall into one of those exceptions I don't know. But the exceptions exist. That's all.

Wait.. I get it! It wasn't this specific forum, it was another visa forum? Well, that's irrelevant.

Yodrak said that the couple in the example had their petition approved - not that they received the visa.

Thanks I get it.