Any In Person Meetings Visa Hold-Ups?

[jozlee 0]

I sent my I-129F to CSC on 3/24, got the NOA1 back on 3/29, with a 3/26 date. I met my fiance in person, and I was just wondering if anyone has been held up who stated that they met in person, or if the hold-up that people have been getting has only been for those who met online.

[TracyTN 237]

Don't see why that would make a difference in processing times.

[iceyspots 0]

USCIS doesn't care if you met online or in-person.. the important thing is that you've met the person within the past 2 years.

[zyggy 9]

I sent my I-129F to CSC on 3/24, got the NOA1 back on 3/29, with a 3/26 date. I met my fiance in person, and I was just wondering if anyone has been held up who stated that they met in person, or if the hold-up that people have been getting has only been for those who met online.

It appears at this point in time that they are doing checks on everyone no matter the circumstances upon which they met...

[Jenn! 918]

Don't see why that would make a difference in processing times.

I think she's referring to the IMBRA. It's been suggested that they use your circumstances of meeting to determine whether to do the additional checks.

[jozlee 0]

Yes, I was referring to the IMBRA. I'm an attorney (not immigration), but according to the IMBRA, the additional checks are only required for people who met through marriage brokers. Given we met in person, I would think there would be no holds initiated by the CSC, NVC or the consulate given those provisions do not apply.

[cdngirl06 0]

I met my fiance in person (and we have seen each other often since then) and our petition was recalled...

[JanaknJanet 0]

USCIS doesn't care if you met online or in-person.. the important thing is that you've met the person within the past 2 years.

Dont think that this statement is right...? the USCIS does indeed care that you have met in-person if you are applying for K-1.

Isnt it true that we many of us have met our loved ones.. "on-line" That is not qulifiable for the meeting within 2 years requirement of applying for k-1.

It is my ASSUMPTION THAT it MUST be a PHYSICAL in person MEETING to qualify to apply for K-1.

There have been too many rejections of persons not having enough proof of having met... or persons filing before the actual in-person meeting.. ... .

look at the flow chart for k-1....

"4. Declaration of how you met in person in the last two years. This should be a single typed page regarding question 18 of the I-129F. Make sure to sign and date it.

[hockeygal 0]

Dont think that this statement is right...? the USCIS does indeed care that you have met in-person if you are applying for K-1.

Isnt it true that we many of us have met our loved ones.. "on-line" That is not qulifiable for the meeting within 2 years requirement of applying for k-1.

they care that you have met in person in the past two years... they don't care if how you initially met was in person or online. (other than marriage broker that is)

Edited May 17, 2006 by hockeygal

[Jenn! 918]

Dont think that this statement is right...? the USCIS does indeed care that you have met in-person if you are applying for K-1.

Isnt it true that we many of us have met our loved ones.. "on-line" That is not qulifiable for the meeting within 2 years requirement of applying for k-1.

they care that you have met in person in the past two years... they don't care if how you initially met was in person or online. (other than marriage broker that is)

I've heard though that if your declaration of meeting on your I-129F does not rule out an IMB, then you will undergo the checks.

[Yodrak 7]

JanaknJanet,

Ambiguous use of the word 'met' - met as in having first become acquainted or met as in having been in each other's physical presence.

Consider the context in which the word is used, not the word alone.

Yodrak

USCIS doesn't care if you met online or in-person.. the important thing is that you've met the person within the past 2 years.

Dont think that this statement is right...? the USCIS does indeed care that you have met in-person if you are applying for K-1.

...

[hockeygal 0]

I've heard though that if your declaration of meeting on your I-129F does not rule out an IMB, then you will undergo the checks.

yea, I am probably one of the unclear. I just said "online". Oh well, I will view all delays as more time to save money before I am unemployed for months and months!

[Yodrak 7]

jozlee,

Then I would have expected you to seek the opinion of an appropriate attorney? Surely you must know attornies outside of your specialty?

Yodrak

.... I'm an attorney (not immigration), ....

Edited May 17, 2006 by Yodrak

[cdngirl06 0]

I've heard though that if your declaration of meeting on your I-129F does not rule out an IMB, then you will undergo the checks.

Well, as I mentioned in another thread, we met for the first time at a sports event in Toronto, Canada. We described this meeting and several of our meetings afterwards, and supported each of those meetings with photos, train stubs, passport stamps, etc... We didn't specifically state "we did not use an IMB" but I think it was pretty clear that we didn't and our case has been recalled beause of IMBRA.

[Jenn! 918]

I've heard though that if your declaration of meeting on your I-129F does not rule out an IMB, then you will undergo the checks.

Well, as I mentioned in another thread, we met for the first time at a sports event in Toronto, Canada. We described this meeting and several of our meetings afterwards, and supported each of those meetings with photos, train stubs, passport stamps, etc... We didn't specifically state "we did not use an IMB" but I think it was pretty clear that we didn't and our case has been recalled beause of IMBRA.

I think they still have no idea what they're doing up there, which is maybe why your petition was recalled. I've gotten the impression that eventually they will only do checks on petitions where they know or suspect an IMB was used.

Note my extensive use of vague language.

Edited May 17, 2006 by jenn3539