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

[The Way it Is 0]

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.

I guess I dont understand your comment. The adjudicator is required to follow the published regulations of the HSC which are based upon legal interpretations, case law, etc. Any decison that he makes regarding the petition is only a recommendation, as he/she must get coordination from the chain of command including the legal department before the Divison Chief signs off on the approval denial of the petition. An adjudicator only does all the leg work and recommends approval/denial.

Assuming that the goal of the OP is to get his fiancee here sometime in the foreseeable future, it would be foolish for him to pursue a couse of action that will result in only delay and almost a certainty of denial as all have eluded to here. So to tell him that its worth a shot is not being realistic and could be a very expensive course of action as probably the only approval authority in this kind of case would be at the Board of Appeal level.

Do you realize how expensive and time consuming this could be?? He would have to pay for the transporation and per diem of his attorney to go to the hearing held at some service center, etc.

I did not know until this post that there was any culture in the world that prohibited fiancees from meeting priot to a marriage. But, as pointed out by Yodrak, there is a culture in the tribal region the mountains of Pakistan. This is new to me and thanks for the info.

Now if you are to claim that you belong to such a culture, it will have to be well documented by the religious/ political leaders of such a culture, and the USCIS would expect you to live all facets of your life IAW with the practices of this culture since you claim to be a member.

How much time/money do you expect this guy to exhaust?? You actually believe that this is a smart course of action??? Would you do it under the same circumstances, or would you save yourself all the time and expense and just jump on a plane and meet your fiancee??? I think I would prefer to meet her.

[pushbrk 13,625]

How much time/money do you expect this guy to exhaust?? You actually believe that this is a smart course of action??? Would you do it under the same circumstances, or would you save yourself all the time and expense and just jump on a plane and meet your fiancee??? I think I would prefer to meet her.

While brash (and I have no problem with brash) Way has made the point well. We seem to have lost in the shell game, the fact that the OP asked about obtaining a waiver for reasons other than the ones stated. SO.....it doesn't seem that religion or culture is a factor in this couple's case anyway. No reason has been given by the OP for having asked the question or why they haven't met. Sometimes a question is just a question.

[TracyTN 237]

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.

I guess I dont understand your comment. The adjudicator is required to follow the published regulations of the HSC which are based upon legal interpretations, case law, etc. Any decison that he makes regarding the petition is only a recommendation, as he/she must get coordination from the chain of command including the legal department before the Divison Chief signs off on the approval denial of the petition. An adjudicator only does all the leg work and recommends approval/denial.

Assuming that the goal of the OP is to get his fiancee here sometime in the foreseeable future, it would be foolish for him to pursue a couse of action that will result in only delay and almost a certainty of denial as all have eluded to here. So to tell him that its worth a shot is not being realistic and could be a very expensive course of action as probably the only approval authority in this kind of case would be at the Board of Appeal level.

Do you realize how expensive and time consuming this could be?? He would have to pay for the transporation and per diem of his attorney to go to the hearing held at some service center, etc.

...

How much time/money do you expect this guy to exhaust?? You actually believe that this is a smart course of action??? Would you do it under the same circumstances, or would you save yourself all the time and expense and just jump on a plane and meet your fiancee??? I think I would prefer to meet her.

You don't? Hmm I thought being 'the way it is' and all, you'd know without me having to say a word! But at any rate, its all well and good what the USCIS regulations say, or what the case worker is 'supposed' to do. What I'm suggesting is that rules and regulations don't always control what any individual may do on any given day. Perhaps the case worker woke up feeling generous - or felt like being a non conformist - on the day the OP's file crossed his desk, and approved the petition. How that may then play out at the embassy is another matter entirely. But I'm sure you can tell me that, too.

I read the entirety of HuskerKiev's thread, and I don't remember him saying that their decisions on petitions had to be 'coordinated' through the chain of command, nor reviewed by any legal department. If that's the case, then I missed that somewhere. It also wouldn't explain the rampant inconsistancies we've seen just on VJ in case adjudication (some get RFEs for not including beneficiary birth certificates while others do not, etc and so on).

I don't expect the OP to do anything, nor did I ever say anywhere in this thread that I thought he should try it. Sorry, but that's not 'the way it is'.

And of course I realize what it could cost him. However, what I would do personally (if in his situation) and what the OP might do may well be two different things. Stating my opinion to him about his situation is just that - what he does with that opinion (as well as the opinions of others) is beyond my control. (At least the last time I checked anyway.)

[TracyTN 237]

How much time/money do you expect this guy to exhaust?? You actually believe that this is a smart course of action??? Would you do it under the same circumstances, or would you save yourself all the time and expense and just jump on a plane and meet your fiancee??? I think I would prefer to meet her.

While brash (and I have no problem with brash) Way has made the point well. We seem to have lost in the shell game, the fact that the OP asked about obtaining a waiver for reasons other than the ones stated. SO.....it doesn't seem that religion or culture is a factor in this couple's case anyway. No reason has been given by the OP for having asked the question or why they haven't met. Sometimes a question is just a question.

I have no problem with brash either.

But there's a difference between brash and admitting that you quite possibly may not know EVERYthing there is to know about this process. I've been on this board for nearly 3 years and I still find myself learning new things about this process all the time. Something I suppose 'The Way It Is' would never admit to, as he clearly already knows it all.

[The Way it Is 0]

You will never never receive a NOA, approval notice or any decision from the USCIS signed off by some adjudicator. Thes approvals are given at a minimum of Division level. Doesnt matter how generous an adjudicator feels. He/she will be required to defend their decision, and it will be coordinated thru the entire staff offices as being IAW policies, practices, law, regulations, etc. of the department.

Ive spent quite a few years working for the federal govt and have been thru it 1000 times.

[payxibka 10,048]

You will never never receive a NOA, approval notice or any decision from the USCIS signed off by some adjudicator. Thes approvals are given at a minimum of Division level. Doesnt matter how generous an adjudicator feels. He/she will be required to defend their decision, and it will be coordinated thru the entire staff offices as being IAW policies, practices, law, regulations, etc. of the department.

Ive spent quite a few years working for the federal govt and have been thru it 1000 times.

You have filed 1000 petitions? I guess you are why we have those provisions within IMBRA....

Edited May 9, 2007 by fwaguy

[TracyTN 237]

If you say so - that must be 'the way it is'.

My dad just retired from his fed govt job after 30+ years, but he knew very little about the intricacies of the immigration process, nor the policies of an immigration service center.

[The Way it Is 0]

If you say so - that must be 'the way it is'.

My dad just retired from his fed govt job after 30+ years, but he knew very little about the intricacies of the immigration process, nor the policies of an immigration service center.

I didnt say that I worked for the USCIS, nor did I say that I have filed 1000's of petitions. I only said that I have worked for the fed govt for years, and I have coordinated hundreds of documents thru approval at the proper level to ensure that it met the requirements of the law and the intent of Congress. These dealt mostly with govt contracts at very high dollar values where the approval authority was about six levels higher than my measly warrant.

[TracyTN 237]

If you say so - that must be 'the way it is'.

My dad just retired from his fed govt job after 30+ years, but he knew very little about the intricacies of the immigration process, nor the policies of an immigration service center.

I didnt say that I worked for the USCIS, nor did I say that I have filed 1000's of petitions. I only said that I have worked for the fed govt for years, and I have coordinated hundreds of documents thru approval at the proper level to ensure that it met the requirements of the law and the intent of Congress. These dealt mostly with govt contracts at very high dollar values where the approval authority was about six levels higher than my measly warrant.

I never said you worked for USCIS or filed 1000s of petitions.

I'm sure your job did entail getting documents through proper authoritative levels. I just wasn't aware that was the case for USCIS case workers, so I wondered how you could know that for certain - particularly when we had a former USCIS case worker post here who didn't mention that at all (that I remember).

Just because one government job does it one way doesn't mean that's how they ALL do it. There are literally thousands of various jobs with the US government. Are you saying that ALL of them must go through the same channels that you did in your job?

Edited May 9, 2007 by TracyTN

[Yodrak 7]

The Way it Is,

Point of clarification: Yodrak did not point out that there is a culture in the tribal region of the mountains of Pakistan that prohibits the meeting of bride and groom prior to marriage. Yodrak pointed out that a fellow from Pakistan was successful in getting the requirement of having met in person waived by making certain cultural and religious claims.

I make no representation that the cultural and religious claims Mr. farhan made were legitimate, whatever those claims might have been exactly or how he documented them. Indeed, if you read through the the 2nd thread that I referenced you will see that a highly experienced and notable attorney took exception.

Do not twist my words. It makes me wonder how much of the other things that you write are also mis-representations.

Yodrak

I did not know until this post that there was any culture in the world that prohibited fiancees from meeting priot to a marriage. But, as pointed out by Yodrak, there is a culture in the tribal region the mountains of Pakistan. .....

Edited May 9, 2007 by Yodrak

[mchakko 0]

The sticking point may also be the distinction between "it is typical to marry before meeting in person" vs "it is prohibited to meet in person before the marriage."

My engagement was quite similar, my aunts and uncles met her in India first, but before the marriage was fixed my parents and I went to meet her in person...

I think the bottom line is that while it may be possible to get the waiver, it is better to bite the bullet and go visit in person rather than going crazy trying to get a waiver - unless it really is strictly prohibited for cultural and religious reasons.

[TimsDaisy 0]

Hey "way it is" - there's more than a few of us here who have worked or do work for the feds in non-USCIS jobs. And while there are some stereotypical and anecdotal truths about the federal government, the rest of us never claim to be experts. So either you're huskerkiev-in-new-clothing (doubtful) or you're just arguing to the death from a point of partial information. That's so dangerous.

I think everyone on this thread, from TracyTN to I, has said that it doesn't look good for the OP, but there are waivers allowed in the law, better go get more information.

WE, however, aren't trying to give assurances based on conjecture.

[The Way it Is 0]

The Way it Is,

Point of clarification: Yodrak did not point out that there is a culture in the tribal region of the mountains of Pakistan that prohibits the meeting of bride and groom prior to marriage. Yodrak pointed out that a fellow from Pakistan was successful in getting the requirement of having met in person waived by making certain cultural and religious claims.

I make no representation that the cultural and religious claims Mr. farhan made were legitimate, whatever those claims might have been exactly or how he documented them. Indeed, if you read through the the 2nd thread that I referenced you will see that a highly experienced and notable attorney took exception.

Do not twist my words. It makes me wonder how much of the other things that you write are also mis-representations.

Yodrak

I did not know until this post that there was any culture in the world that prohibited fiancees from meeting priot to a marriage. But, as pointed out by Yodrak, there is a culture in the tribal region the mountains of Pakistan. .....

Yodrak...Im sure that you spend alot of time in research when you contribute. YOU provided a link to someone who was successful (whaich I didnt bother to read by the way)...that equates to pointing out in my English language. Many of your posts tend to be in the noise level just correcting minuscua.

As to your comment about credibility...I have worked for three fed agencies...All are organised along the same federal buearucratic lines. The worker level that has all the responsibility (usually at the GS-12 non-supervisory level) are the people who do the work. They have the responsibilty but no authority. Authority to obligate the govt in any manner is vested at a high enough level so that decisions tend to be consistent. These people have a charter/warrant/delegation giving them this authority. The adjudicator simply does all the work, and prepares a staff coordination sheet for sign-off and coordination by all required entities and forwarded to the Director or some kind of chief who has the authority to give these approvals.

I have worked for Defence, State, and Interiror...and all are organized the same way. I have forgotton more than you will ever know about how the govt does things.

Im sure that I have some speeling errors for you to correct.

[Caladan 19]

Yodrak has a proven track record here; you don't. You may indeed have all the experience you say you have, but you do no one a favor by expecting people to take that at face value.

To the OP, the exceptions to clause 18 are very strict. Check out the link john & marlene posted: I think there's one approval, and many, many denials (which can show you the sorts of things that are considered.) But the fact that it's costly to fly to India isn't one of the exceptions listed, so if that's your only real reason, get your pennies together and fly over there. (And document the heck out of the experience while you're there.)

[Yodrak 7]

The Way it Is,

I don't disagree with you that I pointed something out. What I disagree with is what it is that I pointed out.

I have not made any statements as to how government does things or how government agencies are organized. I have referenced a successful case where you have been adament that it's useless to make an attempt. Perhaps you should have read the reference to see how the person managed to prevail where you see certain defeat. While I do agree that success is unlikely, it is clear that success is possible.

Congratulations on having made the rounds of federal agencies in your musical chairs career. I think I understand why. Although I didn't see the former INS or the current USCIS on your list. Let us know when you get there and learn how USCIS is organized and operates.

Yodrak

The Way it Is,

Point of clarification: Yodrak did not point out that there is a culture in the tribal region of the mountains of Pakistan that prohibits the meeting of bride and groom prior to marriage. Yodrak pointed out that a fellow from Pakistan was successful in getting the requirement of having met in person waived by making certain cultural and religious claims.

I make no representation that the cultural and religious claims Mr. farhan made were legitimate, whatever those claims might have been exactly or how he documented them. Indeed, if you read through the the 2nd thread that I referenced you will see that a highly experienced and notable attorney took exception.

Do not twist my words. It makes me wonder how much of the other things that you write are also mis-representations.

Yodrak

I did not know until this post that there was any culture in the world that prohibited fiancees from meeting priot to a marriage. But, as pointed out by Yodrak, there is a culture in the tribal region the mountains of Pakistan. .....

Yodrak...Im sure that you spend alot of time in research when you contribute. YOU provided a link to someone who was successful (whaich I didnt bother to read by the way)...that equates to pointing out in my English language. Many of your posts tend to be in the noise level just correcting minuscua.

As to your comment about credibility...I have worked for three fed agencies...All are organised along the same federal buearucratic lines. The worker level that has all the responsibility (usually at the GS-12 non-supervisory level) are the people who do the work. They have the responsibilty but no authority. Authority to obligate the govt in any manner is vested at a high enough level so that decisions tend to be consistent. These people have a charter/warrant/delegation giving them this authority. The adjudicator simply does all the work, and prepares a staff coordination sheet for sign-off and coordination by all required entities and forwarded to the Director or some kind of chief who has the authority to give these approvals.

I have worked for Defence, State, and Interiror...and all are organized the same way. I have forgotton more than you will ever know about how the govt does things.

Im sure that I have some speeling errors for you to correct.

Edited May 10, 2007 by Yodrak