Hardship for meeting within 2 years

[john_and_marlene 162]

What are your thoughts?

Are there still cultures where meeting before marriage is absolutely not allowed even with a chaperone? If you know of one, where is it?

What must one show for medical circumstances?

What other possible reasons could there be?

Does anyone know of a successful attempt at this? What were the circumstances?

[rebeccajo 14]

I have no cultural information.

As far as a medical condition goes, that's a tough one. In my mind it's a snowball sort of scenario. I wonder how someone who might be so debilitated that they could not travel could meet the support obligations of AOS. My scope of knowledge doesn't go that far to any examples. I mean, in theory one can get approved at the service center and consulate levels, be granted the visa, travel here, marry but be denied AOS because of support issues.

My only firm opinion about medical conditions is that waivers should never be granted for medical conditions that are considered psychological.

Financial hardship is a bunk excuse as well, in my book. If you can't afford to travel to meet, you can't afford to bring someone here.

[Arazia 0]

As far as I'm aware, there are not any religions or cultures that deny a couple from meeting before marriage. Of course, someone could always come out of the blue with one and proove me wrong.

As for medical hardship... you would have to prove that -both- were unable to meet each other for medical reasons, and then you have to ask yourself... if you couldn't meet because of that, how do you really expect to get married? This one confuses me.

As for financial hardship... again if you couldn't pay for airfare to meet each other, how do you expect to pay for it after approval and then support the person once married?

I don't know, it just seems like a lot of it doesn't make sense.

[john_and_marlene 162]

I have no cultural information.

As far as a medical condition goes, that's a tough one. In my mind it's a snowball sort of scenario. I wonder how someone who might be so debilitated that they could not travel could meet the support obligations of AOS. My scope of knowledge doesn't go that far to any examples. I mean, in theory one can get approved at the service center and consulate levels, be granted the visa, travel here, marry but be denied AOS because of support issues.

My only firm opinion about medical conditions is that waivers should never be granted for medical conditions that are considered psychological.

Financial hardship is a bunk excuse as well, in my book. If you can't afford to travel to meet, you can't afford to bring someone here.

Maybe the person got the medical condition after retirement and has ample retirement income.

If they can't travel and the non USC can show denials for visas to all possible locations for the USC to travel, maybe that would suffice.

I agree regarding mental illness.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

What are your thoughts?

Are there still cultures where meeting before marriage is absolutely not allowed even with a chaperone? If you know of one, where is it?

What must one show for medical circumstances?

What other possible reasons could there be?

Does anyone know of a successful attempt at this? What were the circumstances?

1. the fact that you asked the question gives some indication of it working. It would be likely that USCIS official deciding on it will be similarly (if not more) ignorant of outside cultures--and would bin the app there
   
2. For USCIS satisfaction, that neither of you was medically able to travel for the 2 years prior
   
3. Financial has been TRIED (but generally fails--as USCIS doesn't accept "where was I supposed to get the money to fly to ....")
   

Edited September 22, 2006 by CherryXS

[john_and_marlene 162]

I also agree that financial hardship would be counter to other immigration requirements. You have to show that bringing the non USC here would not be a financial hardship.

[rebeccajo 14]

Maybe the person got the medical condition after retirement and has ample retirement income.

Oh yeah - John, that might be a valid hardship.

What I was referring to is that many (not all of course) truly medically disabled people are on some sort of assistance.

Edited September 22, 2006 by rebeccajo

[john_and_marlene 162]

I think for the medical hardship, both don't have to have a medical condition. The USC must have the inability to travel due to the medical condition AND the non USC would have to show that they have not been allowed to travel to the USC.

Maybe the person got the medical condition after retirement and has ample retirement income.

Oh yeah - John, that might be a valid hardship.

What I was referring to is that many (not all of course) truly medically disabled people are on some sort of assistance.

I'm sure that the instances where there is both a medical condition that would qualify where there is also financial independence would be very few which is probably why you never hear of them.

[rebeccajo 14]

Regardless of any of this, I'll never be able to wrap my brain around filing a petition to marry someone you've not met.

Look....I felt like I loved Wes before we met face to face. I felt like I might want to marry him. But I was also scared senseless that what I was feeling was an illusion. The only thing I was worried more about than how I looked the day he landed was whether or not what he and I were feeling would 'work' in real life.

I would never be able to make myself fill out and post a visa petition to marry someone that I hadn't met. I'll fess up to the fact that I studied up on it but we held off discussing the details until we were sure.

LOL - I always note that I was at first looking for visas for him to come here and live without a commitment. Of course I now know there is no such thing. I really wanted to draw my alimony just as loooooooooong as I possibly could before I remarried....

Edited September 22, 2006 by rebeccajo

[john_and_marlene 162]

I guess what I'm hoping for here is a collection of experiences of what worked and didn't work so that the entire community can be informed.

[rebeccajo 14]

OK...back to topic.

[john_and_marlene 162]

Regardless of any of this, I'll never be able to wrap my brain around filing a petition to marry someone you've not met.

That doesn't have to be the case. The same hardship waiver would be required if you knew the person for many years, but just had not seen them within the past 2 years.

[rebeccajo 14]

Regardless of any of this, I'll never be able to wrap my brain around filing a petition to marry someone you've not met.

That doesn't have to be the case. The same hardship waiver would be required if you knew the person for many years, but just had not seen them within the past 2 years.

Well, if that's the case, then I think waiver of the requirement should be possible. I wonder what made DOS select a two-year window?

[john_and_marlene 162]

So...

We've ruled out phobias

We've ruled out finances

We've ruled out culture unless someone can name one.

What haven't we ruled out?

1. medical and inability of the non USC to travel close enough

2. USC's house arrest (I suppose this would be over at some time though and wouldn't be enough to qualify)

Edited September 22, 2006 by john_and_marlene

[meauxna 15]

I guess what I'm hoping for here is a collection of experiences of what worked and didn't work so that the entire community can be informed.

ok, I started reading immigration boards in early 2002. I confess to following a couple of them, er, pretty closely.

I have seen ONE of these waivers pass, many attempts, and there might be one other that did pass, but I can't find it.

The one that did pass, well, the 2 lawyers who were participating on the board at the time are fairly firm in their conviction that the petitioner lied and that the waiver was given under suspicious circs.

The one that I can't quite remember was brought up during this recent hubub; I think it was a guy on dialysis who could not make the flight to anywhere and she could not come to the US as a visitor.

The VJ member who made a recent attempt was claiming 'medical reasons' for why they could not meet in person.