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

[Yodrak 7]

eric_and_teresa,

Reading and then repeating information accurately is very relevant.

Yodrak

.....

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

Edited May 8, 2007 by Yodrak

[eric_and_teresa 10]

eric_and_teresa,

Reading and then repeating information accurately is very relevant.

Yodrak

.....

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

I meant that detail was irrelevant to make my point. However the fact that this person got their petition approved, and not the visa was very relevant, as TracyTN pointed out to me very nicely.

You're right, reading and repeating the right info. it's important. I learned your lesson!

[john_and_marlene 162]

Look at this:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;#entry463197

[TimsDaisy 0]

Once we get a member who is a cultural anthropologist, we can start having a discussion about world cultures that may or may not have meeting prohibitions, etc, etc.

From a VJ standpoint, we've provided good information, taken directly from the instructions, and clearly stated that it's a HUGE thing to overcome the meeting requirement.

Whatever we think about what cultures or religions *might* think about meeting before marriage or however *sure* we are about what USCIS will do about the petition is great - but it's 100% non-proven.

The OP should start working with a congressional office and/or immigration lawyer to sort out the real chances. And the OP, now knowing the odds are against him, but the door isn't completely shut, can go ahead and file. $170 is less than a flight to India, I'm guessing.

[Yodrak 7]

Here are two very interesting threads. The main protagonist is farhan, one of his notable antagonists is folinskyinla. The first thread is about the RFE regarding the request for waiver of the meeting in person requirement, the second is about the successful visa interview with flashbacks to how he proved his case and got the waiver. Long threads, but a lot of interesting things in the various tangents. Be sure to read all of folinskyinla's posts.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.visa.us...7990b18dccad005

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.visa.us...6648307fdc8f87b

Yodrak

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

Edited May 8, 2007 by Yodrak

[The Way it Is 0]

Once we get a member who is a cultural anthropologist, we can start having a discussion about world cultures that may or may not have meeting prohibitions, etc, etc.

From a VJ standpoint, we've provided good information, taken directly from the instructions, and clearly stated that it's a HUGE thing to overcome the meeting requirement.

Whatever we think about what cultures or religions *might* think about meeting before marriage or however *sure* we are about what USCIS will do about the petition is great - but it's 100% non-proven.

The OP should start working with a congressional office and/or immigration lawyer to sort out the real chances. And the OP, now knowing the odds are against him, but the door isn't completely shut, can go ahead and file. $170 is less than a flight to India, I'm guessing.

And what exactly does an congressional office going to do?? They do not prepare petitions, they do not give legal advice, etc. A lawyer will charge you an arm and a leg. If he has any ethics he would not wate the OPs' money.

A flight to India is cheaper than filing a petition that will be denied with a 99.99% certanty and then having to pay for a flight to India after wasting many months.

What the OP needs to do, is bite the bullet, spend a few bucks and go to India to meet his fiancee.

That's THE WAY IT IS!

[TimsDaisy 0]

Once we get a member who is a cultural anthropologist, we can start having a discussion about world cultures that may or may not have meeting prohibitions, etc, etc.

From a VJ standpoint, we've provided good information, taken directly from the instructions, and clearly stated that it's a HUGE thing to overcome the meeting requirement.

Whatever we think about what cultures or religions *might* think about meeting before marriage or however *sure* we are about what USCIS will do about the petition is great - but it's 100% non-proven.

The OP should start working with a congressional office and/or immigration lawyer to sort out the real chances. And the OP, now knowing the odds are against him, but the door isn't completely shut, can go ahead and file. $170 is less than a flight to India, I'm guessing.

And what exactly does an congressional office going to do?? They do not prepare petitions, they do not give legal advice, etc. A lawyer will charge you an arm and a leg. If he has any ethics he would not wate the OPs' money.

A flight to India is cheaper than filing a petition that will be denied with a 99.99% certanty and then having to pay for a flight to India after wasting many months.

What the OP needs to do, is bite the bullet, spend a few bucks and go to India to meet his fiancee.

That's THE WAY IT IS!

Ok, "way it is." Since you have a crystal ball that tells you all about both the OP's situation AND the minds of all adjudicators, awesome. We can certainly use someone like you around here.

As Yodrak said, the only 100% guarantee of failure is not trying to start with.

It's all up to the OP.

(And if the OP DOES try to get the requirement waived - that harms NO ONE here at VJ and no one else in the process, so I say, good luck and have at it. He's been informed of the challenges and the chances.)

[TracyTN 237]

Ok, "way it is." Since you have a crystal ball that tells you all about both the OP's situation AND the minds of all adjudicators, awesome. We can certainly use someone like you around here.

I agree - you'll be VERY popular around here!

Now, can you help me out with the winning lotto numbers for tomorrow?

[The Way it Is 0]

Ok, "way it is." Since you have a crystal ball that tells you all about both the OP's situation AND the minds of all adjudicators, awesome. We can certainly use someone like you around here.

I agree - you'll be VERY popular around here!

Now, can you help me out with the winning lotto numbers for tomorrow?

The OP has a better chance of winning the lottery than getting a visa based upon the advice given by some posters here. Anyone can quote the instructions that come with the I-129F...knowing how the USCIS has interpreted the law passed by Congress is something different. After all, THAT's THE WAY IT IS.

[kitkat1 5]

After all, THAT's THE WAY IT IS.

Seriously that is incredibly annoying - every single time you post it.

[eric_and_teresa 10]

Ok, "way it is." Since you have a crystal ball that tells you all about both the OP's situation AND the minds of all adjudicators, awesome. We can certainly use someone like you around here.

I agree - you'll be VERY popular around here!

Now, can you help me out with the winning lotto numbers for tomorrow?

The OP has a better chance of winning the lottery than getting a visa based upon the advice given by some posters here. Anyone can quote the instructions that come with the I-129F...knowing how the USCIS has interpreted the law passed by Congress is something different. After all, THAT's THE WAY IT IS.

Well, believe it or not and based on what I read some of the posters in this thread didn't even read the 1-129F instructions! That's why I quote them.

Since you are so well informed about USCIS interpretations on Congress laws, why don't you share with the rest of us ignorant posters, some of your vaste knowledge? I mean, your previous posts on this thread do not add much either! Your strongest argument was that he wont get it as "there are no cultures that prohibit meeting your spouse in person before marriage".

I'm sure I'm not the only one who could learn something from you, maybe you could tell us more about that appeal you mentioned? Would you enlighten us with your knowledge and explain more? I'd love to learn from someone who knows it all about USCIS interpretations.

Please note that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but seriously, let's leave the attitudes behind, we're here to help, and share opinions and information. Not to prove who's ego is bigger!

Kitkat1, I was wondering if I was the only one thinking that!

[msu17 0]

After all, THAT's THE WAY IT IS.

Seriously that is incredibly annoying - every single time you post it.

OP there IS a waiver for cultural practice. However since this is obviously VERY uncommon, we dont know what they would need to see to prove this waiver. We've seen what doesnt work though

[kitkat1 5]

OP there IS a waiver for cultural practice. However since this is obviously VERY uncommon, we dont know what they would need to see to prove this waiver. We've seen what doesnt work though

And that's perhaps the most important point for the OP to understand. There is a waiver, but it's not a common situation and therefore there haven't been many cases like this here on VJ. So there not a lot of first-hand stories and outcomes to share. That doesn't mean it isn't worth a shot.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Please review the Board of Immigration Appeals decisions over the past couple of years:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD

Many of the decisions deal with denials for not meeting within the 2 years prior. Unless you can get something official stating that you are specifically prohibited from seeing each other prior to marriage, you won't get a waiver for the meeting based on cultural or religious grounds.

[TracyTN 237]

Ok, "way it is." Since you have a crystal ball that tells you all about both the OP's situation AND the minds of all adjudicators, awesome. We can certainly use someone like you around here.

I agree - you'll be VERY popular around here!

Now, can you help me out with the winning lotto numbers for tomorrow?

The OP has a better chance of winning the lottery than getting a visa based upon the advice given by some posters here. Anyone can quote the instructions that come with the I-129F...knowing how the USCIS has interpreted the law passed by Congress is something different. After all, THAT's THE WAY IT IS.

More to the point, though, how will the OP's case worker specifically interpret the 'law passed by Congress' when adjudicating their case? Please tell us, oh wise one.

That seems the more salient point to me in this example than the USCIS' interpretation.