45 and been divorced 3 times already....could this be a problem filing a 1-129F for my Fiance?

[eclowjpd 0]

I don't get the the purpose of a couple of these posts that seem more about venting than helping jamrok with his/her question.

The common thread of posters that gave actual advice seems to be - jamrok be prepared to explain your situation.

Good luck!

[Girona40 1]

I don't get the the purpose of a couple of these posts that seem more about venting than helping jamrok with his/her question.

The common thread of posters that gave actual advice seems to be - jamrok be prepared to explain your situation.

Good luck!

I disagree - I don't think you should have to "explain" the reasons for your past marriages ending at all. It is nobody's business but your own. However, if you have married an immigrant in the past and it ended in divorce then, yes, they may have the right to delve a little deeper. But, if you have copies of all the documents needed and you meet the criteria to marry your fiance then it is totally irrelevent and appealable if they deny you on personal opinion.

In the case of the person that was denied based on age and religious differences - I am sure they could not have put that on the denial notice. If they did then it would certainly have been appealable, since it is not a requirement of statute that you be any age or have any religious affiliation at all.

It is not up to a caseworker or IO to deny your petition based on personal opinion of whether your marriage will last, or whether you will make a good spouse.

[rebeccajo 14]

This is my opinion of what the bottom line is here....

The man with the gold makes the rules.

It doesn't matter if you feel outraged, humiliated, embarrassed or whatever. The CO is the one asking the questions and making the decision.

Their job description doesn't contain do's and don'ts for polite societal niceties and boundaries about the propriety of questions.

I'm sure some are more tactful than others. Some probably have better ways of getting the information they are seeking rather than ask a flat-out rude question.

But....they aren't paid to be nice. They're paid to be thorough. And that's the bottom-line cold hard fact.

[ellis-island 6]

"I am the poster child of what the USICS will do. I have been married 4 times. 2exs are immigrants.

the USICS - dallas interviewed me< USC> it was the worst experiance in my life. < 2 hours of pure hell >.

I was asked how the last marriage ended. I showed my dear jane letter. but, I dont know if the Adjucator belived me. I was also asked how I met my husband and my exs because they were immigrants. I was able to show proof of a bonified marriage. *whew*"

----

I've sat through interviews like that in INS/USCIS District Offices, including Dallas.

Yes. Those can be grueling interviews. The adjudicators dig into the facts and

take the time they need to take to judge the merits of the case.

I doubt if the officers in Manila are going to interview this beneficiary for 2 hours.

I imagine she'll be asked about the petitioner's previous marriages though.

Gary C:

"Do you have an inside on what and when is gonna happen with this IMBRA thing?"

No. I have no inside on the IMBRA thing. I imagine it will create some absurd

no-win situations for everyone involved though. And it will probably be litigated

in Federal Courts.

I also think that petitioners had better prepare their beneficaries for some very

tough questioning about petitioner's previous marital difficulties.

Here's an IMBRA hypothetical:

Consular Officer:

"This man beat his wife. Did you know that?

He really slapped her around...more than once.

Do you really want to go live with him in the United States?

You should think about your own personal safety."

Beneficiary:

"He's nice to me. He doesn't beat me."

Consular Officer:

"That's because you're not his wife yet. Once you're married, he may

start slapping you around too. What will you do then?

Beneficiary

"He won't do that. He told me his ex-wife made

all that up so he couldn't get married again.

I know him. He's really a nice man.

He's very charming and pleasant to be around."

Consular Officer:

"He's done it before. More than once...

Let's face it. He's a dirt-bag.

Are you sure you want to marry him?"

Beneficiary

"Yes. I love him."

Consular Officer

"I don't believe you. This guy is a real loser.

I think you just want to go to America.

No rational woman could want to marry a man who

beats his wife. "

(Hands her a blue sheet that requests a letter from her mother & father

explaining why they want their daughter to marry a dirt-bag who has a known

history of wife-beating.)

Beneficiary

"I don't believe any of that."

(Takes blue sheet and leaves.

----

I honestly don't think many beneficiaries from Vietnam are going to say,

"I guess I don't want the visa after all. My fiancee had a TRO issued against him

once by one of his ex-wife. I'd better not move to San Jose. I'll just stay in here in My Tho for the

rest of my life."

IMBRA may have that effect in rich countries. But Vietnam? China? Philippines? Nigeria? Russia?

Bangladesh? Pakistan?

I'd wager very few beneficiaries from those countries are going to decline their visas after

being informed of their fiance's previous marital difficulties.

I read IMBRA right after it took effect. I haven't revisited it though.

So I'm no expert. But I know the kinds of disclosures it

mandates. It might make for some interesting interviews.

Edited June 11, 2006 by ellis-island

[Kathryn41 3,205]

My husband has been divorced twice. At my K-1 interview, the interviewer asked about both of these divorces and when they had occured, even though I had the divorce decrees with me and had handed them to him. He asked to see the originals - I had made copies for them - which I had and at the end of the interview he handed me back the originals, looking rather pointedly at them, and said "So, what do you want me to do?" I was quite taken aback but responded, "I want you to approve my application and give me the visa". He looked me straight in the eye and said "Are you sure you want to do this?" as if he was waiting for me to change my mind. I unhesitatingly said yes, and he sighed and said "alright". I have no idea what was running through his mind but got the feeling that he didin't like the fact that my then fiancee had been divorced twice. I was glad that I did have the details of both of those marriages to know why they failed (one lasted 2 years, the other one 22 years), but I was shaken by that question.

[eclowjpd 0]

Whether or not you or I like it, the CO can ask what they want, and deny the visa based your answers.

I disagree - I don't think you should have to "explain" the reasons for your past marriages ending at all. It is nobody's business but your own. However, if you have married an immigrant in the past and it ended in divorce then, yes, they may have the right to delve a little deeper. But, if you have copies of all the documents needed and you meet the criteria to marry your fiance then it is totally irrelevent and appealable if they deny you on personal opinion.

In the case of the person that was denied based on age and religious differences - I am sure they could not have put that on the denial notice. If they did then it would certainly have been appealable, since it is not a requirement of statute that you be any age or have any religious affiliation at all.

It is not up to a caseworker or IO to deny your petition based on personal opinion of whether your marriage will last, or whether you will make a good spouse.

[ellis-island 6]

P.S. My IMBRA hypothetical (above) was an attempt at humor.

I was trying to stretch an IMBRA disclosure to its logical absurdity.

I think IMBRA disclosures may have an effect on interviews and on

how interviewers perceive beneficiaries' intent. And I'll prepare my

beneficiaries accordingly.

But I don't actually think interviewers would use some of the terms

I used. And I think it would be a violation of the Privacy Act to make

an IMBRA disclosure to prospective in-laws.

[motu 6]

Dang I dont even know 3 men total I would want to marry. By the 2nd one I would've gave up.

So you don't like SRK or Salman or Vivek or ... etc. etc. Too bad girl.

[Girona40 1]

Rebecca, we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

This is my opinion of what the bottom line is here....

The man with the gold makes the rules.

The Federal Government makes the rules.

It doesn't matter if you feel outraged, humiliated, embarrassed or whatever. The CO is the one asking the questions and making the decision.

The CO can make his decision and it can be referred to his supervisor or appealed if you feel it was not based on material fact, but rather his personal opinion.

Their job description doesn't contain do's and don'ts for polite societal niceties and boundaries about the propriety of questions.

Yes it does. They are required to be courteous and have due regard for the rights of the person being interviewed. They are not to cause duress to an interviewee.

I'm sure some are more tactful than others. Some probably have better ways of getting the information they are seeking rather than ask a flat-out rude question.

If an interviewer asked a "flat-out" rude question - you would be quite within your rights to ask them to re-phrase that question.

But....they aren't paid to be nice. They're paid to be thorough. And that's the bottom-line cold hard fact.

They are required to be courteous, polite and it is not their job to determine the "viability" of any marriage only the validity.

Take a look at The Adjudicator's Field Manual on correct and acceptable interviewing procedures. http://www.uscis.gov/lpbin/lpext.dll/inser...pter-32-21-46-3

Edited June 11, 2006 by Girona40

[babybunny 2]

girlie, busted out with the CO book. wowow very good. ((( props to you ))).

gonna check out the link!

[vicki/bala 0]

Rebecca, we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

This is my opinion of what the bottom line is here....

The man with the gold makes the rules.

The Federal Government makes the rules.

It doesn't matter if you feel outraged, humiliated, embarrassed or whatever. The CO is the one asking the questions and making the decision.

The CO can make his decision and it can be referred to his supervisor or appealed if you feel it was not based on material fact, but rather his personal opinion.

Their job description doesn't contain do's and don'ts for polite societal niceties and boundaries about the propriety of questions.

Yes it does. They are required to be courteous and have due regard for the rights of the person being interviewed. They are not to cause duress to an interviewee.

I'm sure some are more tactful than others. Some probably have better ways of getting the information they are seeking rather than ask a flat-out rude question.

If an interviewer asked a "flat-out" rude question - you would be quite within your rights to ask them to re-phrase that question.

But....they aren't paid to be nice. They're paid to be thorough. And that's the bottom-line cold hard fact.

They are required to be courteous, polite and it is not their job to determine the "viability" of any marriage only the validity.

Take a look at The Adjudicator's Field Manual on correct and acceptable interviewing procedures. http://www.uscis.gov/lpbin/lpext.dll/inser...pter-32-21-46-3

Finally!!!!!!!!! someone gets it! We are all humans here and should be treated with respect and not like a criminal. Really, my fiance was made to feel so low, so much so that he wasnt even able to talk about some of the things that were said to him. All because im older than he is, and divorced, and thats just not the "norm " in India. It had nothing to do with the "rules" but what this evil female interviewer thought about our relationship!

Good job!

vicki/bala

[eclowjpd 0]

And you will probably be denied the visa. You are so off the point of the fellow original question.

Rebecca, we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

This is my opinion of what the bottom line is here....

The man with the gold makes the rules.

The Federal Government makes the rules.

It doesn't matter if you feel outraged, humiliated, embarrassed or whatever. The CO is the one asking the questions and making the decision.

The CO can make his decision and it can be referred to his supervisor or appealed if you feel it was not based on material fact, but rather his personal opinion.

Their job description doesn't contain do's and don'ts for polite societal niceties and boundaries about the propriety of questions.

Yes it does. They are required to be courteous and have due regard for the rights of the person being interviewed. They are not to cause duress to an interviewee.

I'm sure some are more tactful than others. Some probably have better ways of getting the information they are seeking rather than ask a flat-out rude question.

If an interviewer asked a "flat-out" rude question - you would be quite within your rights to ask them to re-phrase that question.

But....they aren't paid to be nice. They're paid to be thorough. And that's the bottom-line cold hard fact.

They are required to be courteous, polite and it is not their job to determine the "viability" of any marriage only the validity.

Take a look at The Adjudicator's Field Manual on correct and acceptable interviewing procedures. http://www.uscis.gov/lpbin/lpext.dll/inser...pter-32-21-46-3

Finally!!!!!!!!! someone gets it! We are all humans here and should be treated with respect and not like a criminal. Really, my fiance was made to feel so low, so much so that he wasnt even able to talk about some of the things that were said to him. All because im older than he is, and divorced, and thats just not the "norm " in India. It had nothing to do with the "rules" but what this evil female interviewer thought about our relationship!

Good job!

vicki/bala

[Jaci 0]

Their job description doesn't contain do's and don'ts for polite societal niceties and boundaries about the propriety of questions.

Yes it does. They are required to be courteous and have due regard for the rights of the person being interviewed. They are not to cause duress to an interviewee.

Girona,

Maybe you're right about what CO's are required to do, but I have seen myself at Bucharest embassy that that is not always the case. I've seen rudeness, disregard, and definitely attempts to upset and confuse.

I agree that they should behave as you are suggesting.

Respectfully,

Jaci

[rushter 0]

Seems as if all of the points of the thread are going haywire with what should be looked at and considered by the consulate. Consider Kathryn's post as very informative:

My husband has been divorced twice. At my K-1 interview, the interviewer asked about both of these divorces and when they had occured, even though I had the divorce decrees with me and had handed them to him. He asked to see the originals - I had made copies for them - which I had and at the end of the interview he handed me back the originals, looking rather pointedly at them, and said "So, what do you want me to do?" I was quite taken aback but responded, "I want you to approve my application and give me the visa". He looked me straight in the eye and said "Are you sure you want to do this?" as if he was waiting for me to change my mind. I unhesitatingly said yes, and he sighed and said "alright". I have no idea what was running through his mind but got the feeling that he didin't like the fact that my then fiancee had been divorced twice. I was glad that I did have the details of both of those marriages to know why they failed (one lasted 2 years, the other one 22 years), but I was shaken by that question.

My fiance went thru the exact same in her interview regarding my previous marriage as well as the condition of my daughter who is disabled. She expected it though... and it didn't bother her in the least bit. Questions about HER previous marriage also came up...

However, the folks at the consulate were VERY nice about it, and respectful to her; (suprising considering the questions).

Divorced, once or three times... just be prepared for the questions. Being informed is cheap considering the alternative.

[Jaci 0]

Divorced, once or three times... just be prepared for the questions. Being informed is cheap considering the alternative.