Rufus2012

The manual you cited also states that officers must respect the rights of the person they are interviewing.
Is privacy not a right respected by the US government? I'm starting to believe it's not, and that unlike what I was thinking, the rights of foreign immigrants are protected a lot more in my country of origin. Which by the way is also a popular destination for immigration...

Perhaps because the sex aspect is the inappropriate one?

Yeah, incredible as it may seem, we are loyal to the countries we were born into and lived into for so long. Shocking, I know.
As for the whole "I wore the uniform", gimmie a break, both of my grandmothers were caught in a serious war, lived in cities that were bombarded for years and didn't make a fuss about it.

I am sure details about an Equadorian's sex life will go a long way whereas protecting the US is concerned.

Yes, paper pusher. COs who act like the OP described are near the bottom of my list as human beings, along with TSA agents who think feeling people up as a precondition for travelling is reasonable. I would have expected that a former marine would value freedom, but you seem to be more than happy to tolerate these sorts of intrustions just because court cases and government policy support them.
Thomas Jefferson is no doubt turning in his grave reading all the government apologists here.
Btw, when this couple was being harassed in Ecuador, how many Mexicans crossed the border illegally, and this same government did absolutely nothing?

These arguments like "it's not inappropriate/invasive/unjust because it's common/not illegal" aren't particularly logical. Just because their ability to ask these questions has not yet been challenged, doesn't mean that it is right or that there is no ground to challenge them. Even if questions about sex life are helpful to root out fraud, they still might not stand up if challenged in an American court. Consider the question of marital status in a job interview: potentially helpful to employers who want to avoid having their employee take time off for children? Yes. Legal? No. In that case, the person being interviewed doesn't have the "right" to the job (just as people are arguing that interviewees don't have a "right" to a green card), but because of the difference in power between the person offering the job and the person trying to get it, there has to be some protection for the interviewee built into the process.
I can't remember if I got this link off this thread or another on VJ, but this article on marriage fraud talks about a CO that was using interviews to extort sexual favors, and the other article from the NYTimes mentioned in this thread says that officers are trained to avoid questions about sex...it's not entirely impossible that the CO is using his/her power to get their...jollies. With gynecologists, you can always go to another if you get creepy vibes from yours; not so with consular interviewers.

Ugly gringa? If those are your photos, you're no ugly gringa my dear, you're quite the opposite.
Rat the SOB out and then get on with your life. Life's too short to fret about a-holes like this. Learn from it, and look forward to the future, the world is yours, you gorgeous gringa.

Do not delete emails and phone messages offering not to report him. You may need them if he files under VAWA and claim you abused him. You will need those messages to protect yourself.

You do not need a marriage certificate, heck don't need to be married.

Yes. And at the root of such an effort are individuals who have been subjected to humiliating and inapropriate treatment by the government and decide to speak out. Isn't that what the OP is trying to do? Being treated with disrespect is not a privilege.

There are a million questions they can ask to accomplish their objective that don't involve intimate sexual details. Based on this, you have to wonder whether their goal is to get to the truth, or to humiliate, embarrass and offend. These questions shouldn't be legal, or deemed legitimate.

I disagree. There is a limit to how far one must go, and such questions are pushing it. They are demeaning and they should not be asked.

You have no idea what you're talking about, listen to the grownups on this thread and go away with your flawed advice.

You mean Swiss cheese border security, on top of which we reward all the lawbreakers with amnesty every 20 years or so?! As they say in South Philly, God forbit!

There is no such evidence. Islam does not prohibit a couple from meeting in person before marriage. I get that you don't "date" or see each other alone, but seeing each other alone is not the requirement. The couple can meet with chaparone(s). Please stop giving inaccurate information here.

Thank you Puskbrk
People who try to create some sort of hope for a person attempting to avoid the requirements are NOT doing them a service and I wish they would cease and desist such nonsense. It is virtually impossible to get the waiver on religious requirements for one simple reason. You are saying you cannot meet in person before marriage, yet you are applying for a visa to DO JUST THAT!
Any person forbidden from seeing the other in person would best be served religiously by getting married in their home country and filing a CR-1
These are silly excuses. Spring break is coming, get a babysitter and go to Pakistan. Sheeesh.
The only such waivers I have ever seen are for medical harship and only after the foreign beneficiary was denied for tourist visas to the US.
I suggest people stop giving false hopes to others because of some obscure boiler plate language in the law which exists mainly to respect some obscure religion that may exist.

This person is gung ho on what they are going to do. let them learn the lesson, and do what is next when they get denied. only they can learn from their mistakes.
i also see they met June 2011, isn't that a little quick, not meeting in person?they will see that as well.
Good luck.

It's the petition approval that will not be granted. No visa has been or will be even applied for until a petition is approved. Petitions are not visa applications.

The senior members here are aware of this apparent loophole in the regulations but we are also aware that such waivers are almost never granted. There is no strict and long-established custom in Pakistan where the bride and groom are actually prohibited from meeting prior to the wedding day. Such customs are extremely rare and obscure. In cases where they DO exist the couple has to do a lot more than present a few "convincing reasons" for not meeting. They must ACTUALLY establish that any and all other aspects of the traditional arrangements have been or will be met in accordance with the custom or practice they claim applies to them.
Travel to Pakistan is not an issue. To take the hardship route, the couple must demonstrate that they've made every effort to meet in any country to which they both could reasonably arrange travel. (The UAE is good example.)
None of the above applies to this couple. My advice is that the go ahead and presume their petition will be denied and either make the necessary arrangements to meet in person before filing again, or face the fact that without meeting, they will not be together in the USA.

ir5 and togetherforever, stop the bickering.

You're an American woman marrying a Tunisian male somewhat younger than you are, and you hid this from your family. Really? Are you 12 years old and scared to tell daddy you like a boy you met in class?
Good luck with his interview, you're going to need it. Were I a CO, especially at a high fraud area with people who don't like the US, this wouldn't pass the smell test.

Your attorney is afraid you'll find out she's screwing up. Any attorney who is confident in what they're doing would not have any problem whatever with their client seeking a second opinion on an important legal matter. I consulted with three other attorneys during my last divorce. I was completely open with my attorney about it, and he had no problems with it. In fact, he was glad I was being proactive. He was confident his advice was right, and also confident that other attorneys would confirm this. They did. He was also glad I was doing a lot of my own research because it meant he didn't have to explain a lot of things to me. If I had an attorney who was offended that I was consulting other attorneys and doing my own research then I'd fire them on the spot. Most attorneys WANT an educated client. It makes their work easier.
Your attorney has severely screwed up on four different points. First, the letters of intent, or some sort of original statements, are required for the I-129F. The form instructions are clear on this. Yes, many people have had petitions approved without them, but others have gotten RFE's for not submitting them. Second, there is only one consulate in Mexico that conducts K1 interviews. Your attorney should have known this. Third, the fees are VERY predictable. Unless there's a fee increase coming up, your attorney should be able to tell you, down to the dollar, what the fees are going to be. Fourth, an I-130 is NOT required with a K1 adjustment of status unless the K1 marries the petitioner after their I-94 has expired.
Fire your attorney. Whether you want to pursue a legal malpractice case against your attorney is up to you. At this point, you could probably only get your attorney fees reimbursed because you probably couldn't show any actual harm. You were fortunate to have discovered your attorney was incompetent before she managed to do any real damage.

I'm not sure what this has to do with a K-1 visa. Sounds more like a diary entry.

Oh, I better stop before I get on that soapbox (in agreement with you).
In a nutshell: Both of our Fiancées are not of political value to any politician.
I also see numerous Petitioner's with fiancées from Mexico in this forum, and wish I could shake their hands. They have chosen to follow the rules of law, yet ironically are delayed while many of their fellow countryman break the same law and are rewarded.