Important Advice for NEW K1 Filers

[cdneh 3,112]

Hey Hey Hey, it will be denied for the very main reason.... K1 is a fiancee visa. You mentioned that you were "MARRIED" right? Therefore, you should be filing K3 or Spusal, not K1....

He did ..he filed for a K1 and was denied. Then he filed K3 and was approved. At least I think that's the story...

[BokGao 0]

Hey Hey Hey, it will be denied for the very main reason.... K1 is a fiancee visa. You mentioned that you were "MARRIED" right? Therefore, you should be filing K3 or Spusal, not K1....

He did ..he filed for a K1 and was denied. Then he filed K3 and was approved. At least I think that's the story...

Yes but only after loosing 8 months. 8 months of fighting and arguing with USCIS about the meeting in person waiver due to religious belief. Which in the end, he did not qualify for. He just took it upon himself to believe, without question, that he qualified for this waiver and miscalculated the process to believe that proofing this would be a synch. Sad, sad really. So because of this miscalculation, USCIS is to blame for everything that is wrong in this world. The injustice.

[Mike B. 231]

You have to put yourself in the shoes of the USCIS officer looking at your case. Like it or not, this is what that person was thinking:

"This petitioner clearly doesn't care enough about the process to read the instructions on the petition. He's messed up his own petition by requesting a waiver that he himself seems to admit that he doesn't qualify for. He could rectify the problem by spending a couple hundred dollars to visit his fiancee for a day and then make an argument that this post-petition meeting should count, but he apparently doesn't care enough about her to do that. He's asking for a waiver without proving that he qualifies for it so that he can avoid a requirement on a petition that he definately doesn't qualify for. Federal law absolutely prohibits me from approving of his petition as it is currently drawn up. What do I do?"

It's really not a surprise to anyone else here that the conclusion that the USCIS officer reached was to just deny the waiver and allow you to deal with the ultimate consequence, denial of the petition.

If you think that USCIS should stop awarding waivers to people who actually qualify for them just because you don't qualify them, then I suggest you write a letter to your congressional representative saying so. I'm sure it will get the attention it deserves.

[ghosttridder 0]

So, with this clause I go ahead and apply the k1 stating that my culture does not allow us to physically have a relationship until after marriage. So I waited and waited for a reply.

To most that is different from not being allowed to physically be in each others presence until the marriage. Not being able to hold hands, or kiss or hug does not mean you can't sit on couch A across the room where she sits on couch B and you talk for 5 minutes and document that. There are cultures where the 2 parties are not permitted to even sit on couch A and B, which is why the clause is in the petition. They do VERY RARELY approve on this clause, so removing it because you feel wronged is just silly.

We do appreciate you adding this post, since we get questions regarding this waiver fairly often and now we have a personal experience to refer the poster to. However what most people here are reacting to is your attitude that you were wronged and the USCIS is at fault. They are just following their standard procedure and you did not submit adequate evidence to meet the requirement for the waiver. And the point you made that the gov. is out of line by asking individuals to petition for their loved ones is def. going to ruffle a few feathers. The US has these rules in place because individuals brought "spouses" to the US for immigration purposes only for too long and the US put a stop to it. The US does not have the obligation to let anyone in the country just because you claim they are your spouse. You actually have to prove it. So prove it and move on with your day. From now on, make sure you investigate before decide waivers are for you and you often save yourself a lot more time.

It's pretty interesting to read many posts on this forum other than this thread (it seemed to have invited all the uscis lovers) From what I read on this website, I have read many stories of people who are downright frustrated, clouded with despair, angry with the system, even people who sue the uscis, people who constantly complain indirectly on how terrible this process is. I dont need to go on, it is obvious, from what i read. uscis does a sloppy job, is pretty insensitive to human relationships, it's just paperwork to them. they dont realize that there are real people with lives "on hold" behind those paperwork that sits on their desk form many many months. Bottom line, people do not like this process, this cannot be denied and here i say it is the uscis fault yet again. I put blame on the uscis, for taking peoples money and prolonging paperwork at their discretion. I put blame on the uscis for making misleading statements. I put blame on the uscis for keeping families apart for so damn long. And we sit here and wonder why do all the mexicans cross the border illegally. I'll never change my stance on this because it's obvious, not one of you can convince me otherwise. I believe that there should be an immigration overall overhaul procedural reform.

While I agree with most of what you say above it still does not change my opinion of your original post. But heck i'm only one guy in a sea of "uscis lovers"...LOL

Of course I did a lot of research, tried hard to understand everything I needed to know and left NOTHING to CHANCE, I documented everything and sent a little more than required at every stage just to make sure.

End Result: I filed mid Jan '09 and my fiance has been in US since June 1, 2009. Noa1 to Noa2 was very short either by luck or so easy to glance at package and approve, flew from USCIS to NVC to Manila Embassy in 7 days, fiance did the meds and seminars in a 4 day period, interview took 3 hours waiting and 5 minutes talking, 7 days later waiting in front of Air21 branch in Cebu for them to dig our package out of their delivery pile and the following Monday on a 24 hour flight home.

Maybe it was a combo of many things but my case was not the easiest by far many different things could have held us up but they didn't because I paid attention and triple/quadriple checked everything and ask many ??'s here.

I could have fallen into the trap of "well, that can't apply to me" or "i'm sure this will be ok" but that's just not me, and now I have only myself to blame for getting my fiance here in record time. I guess I could blame USCIS for working so fast on my case but why? They probably spent a total of 20 minutes looking at my stuff and I spent months making sure it was RIGHT...so who should I BLAME?

You should forget about telling USCIS anything cause they really don't care about your opinions and will not change anything, hopefully the next guy will be a little more diligent and maybe get lucky enough to find a good site like this one and get the info himself.

And for the record this is not an argumentative thread it is just opinions and everyone has one, it only feels that way because of your unwillingness to accept the responsibility that you didn't check enough into something that is very deep to start with.

listen here. I'm not stupid. I believe i am very well educated, and i've read the reqs for applying. No where on the application informational packet did it warn me about how rare it is to get a waiver number 1. number 2 there was no reason for me to do an in depth research. number 3, i've read every stinking reason the uscis gave me back as a response, and you know what it comes to? (I'm not going to come here and blow sunshine up everyone that thinks it's my fault, because it's too much, and i don't have the time like the people at the uscis believe i do). "they just didn't buy it". That's it. The waiver DOES apply to me. They wanted proof, i sent them the so called proof. They didn't buy it. thats it. So i'm posting my stuff so the people on here will know that.

For the average guy who is going to apply, he has NO IDEA what he is going to get into until after the fact that he applies and gets into a trap. Then he realizes, and then if he does get denied, he gets blamed for being not too careful, or done his research. I dont think so.

[Danu 19]

That would be why in my reply on the last page I put down that anyone applying should get proof in the way of

1) letters from both fathers stating it is an arranged marriage and under no circumstances can you meet and

2) a letter from the religious leader also stating that due to your customs there is no way you can meet at all until the wedding date.

You writing a letter is not enough proof unfortunately, you need other people backing you up, and from what you have written you wrote the letter yourself stating thats the way things are done.

And unfortunately at this point I'm going to to finally come out and say it is your fault, even though you keep trying to deny it, because thats what you seem so stuck on people saying. Anyone who files without doing research into and understanding the process is at fault for their errors, regardless of whether it was due to things not being specific enough or if it was due to misunderstanding of something. If you care enough and you want to pass, you will do the research. That is why this site exists.

Most of our "average guys" who come on here looking for advice on this subject do a search or post a topic asking what information they need to prove the hardship. We have had a few in the last months asking about this same thing. They ask if there is anything specific they should get to prove its against their culture, they dont just say, yeah it applies to me I will write a pretty letter to USCIS which because it comes from me they can't possibly think its not true, and hope everything goes ok. A lot of people who responded to you were expanding on why you were denied for the exact reason you posted this thread, so that other people would be able to find the information. And now you are getting all defensive about people saying that you misread things or that this is what you should have done....thats the whole purpose for this post isnt it? If not why did you post it? The information YOU have posted would help no one, whereas what other people have posted will actually help the men (or women) who are looking to do it this way without failing. You saying don't do it ever cuz it won't work doesnt help those who genuinely cannot meet ever, and knowing what kind of paperwork might help will help them a lot more than your posts. As quite a few people have stated, they do approve on this clause, its just very rare because there are very very few places and religions that will not let you meet at all until the wedding day.

No where in the info packets does it say a lot of things that VJ does for even normal petitions, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who get denied for not putting in enough of whatever, but then again, because you seem so stuck on this sentance, its their fault for not doing their research.

[Mike B. 231]

there was no reason for me to do an in depth research.

You're talking about making decisions that will drastically affect the lives of you and the woman you love for years to come! If you don't consider that a reason to do some serious research, you should seriously re-evaluate your priorities.

By the way, USCIS absolutely made the right call. You have to prove that your religion or culture absolutely prohibits you from meeting your spouse before you marry her. Your religion and culture do not place any such absolute prohibition on you. Even if you could satisfactorally prove that you are an adherent to some ulta-conservative sect of Islam, that still wouldn't be good enough because, as it has been pointed out to you many times, there is nothing in Islam that prohibits you from marrying a woman that you have met before. Muslims marry people that they have met all the time.

While it's true that Islam does look down upon premarital sex, so does just about every other organized religion on the planet. It's totally irrelevant because there is no requirement with the K-1 visa for you to have sex with your fiancee. You only have to see her in a room under the supervision of her parents. You know, like they do in Muslim countries all the time.

[ghosttridder 0]

That would be why in my reply on the last page I put down that anyone applying should get proof in the way of

1) letters from both fathers stating it is an arranged marriage and under no circumstances can you meet and

2) a letter from the religious leader also stating that due to your customs there is no way you can meet at all until the wedding date.

Well, it's obvious that if these two things were indentified to the applicant, surely they would have produced these particular evidence, unfortunately no where was these two things stated to inform the applicant of the "specific" types of proof that they require, and once again, leaving an open window for the applicant to produce evidence that would require a rfe and an eventual denial

You writing a letter is not enough proof unfortunately, you need other people backing you up, and from what you have written you wrote the letter yourself stating thats the way things are done.

Obviously it isn't enough proof, now that i know

[ghosttridder 0]

there was no reason for me to do an in depth research.

You're talking about making decisions that will drastically affect the lives of you and the woman you love for years to come! If you don't consider that a reason to do some serious research, you should seriously re-evaluate your priorities.

By the way, USCIS absolutely made the right call. You have to prove that your religion or culture absolutely prohibits you from meeting your spouse before you marry her. Your religion and culture do not place any such absolute prohibition on you. Even if you could satisfactorally prove that you are an adherent to some ulta-conservative sect of Islam, that still wouldn't be good enough because, as it has been pointed out to you many times, there is nothing in Islam that prohibits you from marrying a woman that you have met before. Muslims marry people that they have met all the time.

While it's true that Islam does look down upon premarital sex, so does just about every other organized religion on the planet. It's totally irrelevant because there is no requirement with the K-1 visa for you to have sex with your fiancee. You only have to see her in a room under the supervision of her parents. You know, like they do in Muslim countries all the time.

obviously the system has to be unclear if you are stating that research is required to complete an application for proper results LOLZ.. i thought it was supposed to be an application, not a science project

Edited June 22, 2009 by ghosttridder

[SCFsnoopy 0]

obviously the system has to be unclear if you are stating that research is required to complete an application for proper results LOLZ.. i thought it was supposed to be an application, not a science project

If you really had that immature of an approach coming into this, it's no wonder your initial petition got denied.

Consider this - filing an I-129F petition means that, at the end of the process, you are getting MARRIED. That is a huge, adult commitment. Your attitude of "I shouldn't have to ask permission/do research/meet my fiancee/put in any effort beyond what's strictly required" shows a remarkable lack of said commitment. I honestly feel sorry for your wife.

You can argue that you are intelligent as much as you like but you are not showing us any proof of that, and failing to research the requirements of that clause shows an astounding amount of stupidity. A clause is a very specific part of a contract, and thus if you wish to have anything to do with it, it is in your best interest to find out the exact provisions that clause entails and meet the criteria for it.

I agree with Danu; your original post isn't helping in saying that nobody should use this clause because it doesn't work, but the information provided by subsequent posters which outlines what you should provide if you are eligible for this clause will be helpful. You, clearly, were not eligible and thus you were denied. Here's hoping that whoever is next to ask about the clause will not be naive enough to think that they can get by with next to no proof of their eligibility.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So, with this clause I go ahead and apply the k1 stating that my culture does not allow us to physically have a relationship until after marriage. So I waited and waited for a reply.

To most that is different from not being allowed to physically be in each others presence until the marriage. Not being able to hold hands, or kiss or hug does not mean you can't sit on couch A across the room where she sits on couch B and you talk for 5 minutes and document that. There are cultures where the 2 parties are not permitted to even sit on couch A and B, which is why the clause is in the petition. They do VERY RARELY approve on this clause, so removing it because you feel wronged is just silly.

We do appreciate you adding this post, since we get questions regarding this waiver fairly often and now we have a personal experience to refer the poster to. However what most people here are reacting to is your attitude that you were wronged and the USCIS is at fault. They are just following their standard procedure and you did not submit adequate evidence to meet the requirement for the waiver. And the point you made that the gov. is out of line by asking individuals to petition for their loved ones is def. going to ruffle a few feathers. The US has these rules in place because individuals brought "spouses" to the US for immigration purposes only for too long and the US put a stop to it. The US does not have the obligation to let anyone in the country just because you claim they are your spouse. You actually have to prove it. So prove it and move on with your day. From now on, make sure you investigate before decide waivers are for you and you often save yourself a lot more time.

It's pretty interesting to read many posts on this forum other than this thread (it seemed to have invited all the uscis lovers) From what I read on this website, I have read many stories of people who are downright frustrated, clouded with despair, angry with the system, even people who sue the uscis, people who constantly complain indirectly on how terrible this process is. I dont need to go on, it is obvious, from what i read. uscis does a sloppy job, is pretty insensitive to human relationships, it's just paperwork to them. they dont realize that there are real people with lives "on hold" behind those paperwork that sits on their desk form many many months. Bottom line, people do not like this process, this cannot be denied and here i say it is the uscis fault yet again. I put blame on the uscis, for taking peoples money and prolonging paperwork at their discretion. I put blame on the uscis for making misleading statements. I put blame on the uscis for keeping families apart for so damn long. And we sit here and wonder why do all the mexicans cross the border illegally. I'll never change my stance on this because it's obvious, not one of you can convince me otherwise. I believe that there should be an immigration overall overhaul procedural reform.

While I agree with most of what you say above it still does not change my opinion of your original post. But heck i'm only one guy in a sea of "uscis lovers"...LOL

Of course I did a lot of research, tried hard to understand everything I needed to know and left NOTHING to CHANCE, I documented everything and sent a little more than required at every stage just to make sure.

End Result: I filed mid Jan '09 and my fiance has been in US since June 1, 2009. Noa1 to Noa2 was very short either by luck or so easy to glance at package and approve, flew from USCIS to NVC to Manila Embassy in 7 days, fiance did the meds and seminars in a 4 day period, interview took 3 hours waiting and 5 minutes talking, 7 days later waiting in front of Air21 branch in Cebu for them to dig our package out of their delivery pile and the following Monday on a 24 hour flight home.

Maybe it was a combo of many things but my case was not the easiest by far many different things could have held us up but they didn't because I paid attention and triple/quadriple checked everything and ask many ??'s here.

I could have fallen into the trap of "well, that can't apply to me" or "i'm sure this will be ok" but that's just not me, and now I have only myself to blame for getting my fiance here in record time. I guess I could blame USCIS for working so fast on my case but why? They probably spent a total of 20 minutes looking at my stuff and I spent months making sure it was RIGHT...so who should I BLAME?

You should forget about telling USCIS anything cause they really don't care about your opinions and will not change anything, hopefully the next guy will be a little more diligent and maybe get lucky enough to find a good site like this one and get the info himself.

And for the record this is not an argumentative thread it is just opinions and everyone has one, it only feels that way because of your unwillingness to accept the responsibility that you didn't check enough into something that is very deep to start with.

listen here. I'm not stupid. I believe i am very well educated, and i've read the reqs for applying. No where on the application informational packet did it warn me about how rare it is to get a waiver number 1. number 2 there was no reason for me to do an in depth research. number 3, i've read every stinking reason the uscis gave me back as a response, and you know what it comes to? (I'm not going to come here and blow sunshine up everyone that thinks it's my fault, because it's too much, and i don't have the time like the people at the uscis believe i do). "they just didn't buy it". That's it. The waiver DOES apply to me. They wanted proof, i sent them the so called proof. They didn't buy it. thats it. So i'm posting my stuff so the people on here will know that.

For the average guy who is going to apply, he has NO IDEA what he is going to get into until after the fact that he applies and gets into a trap. Then he realizes, and then if he does get denied, he gets blamed for being not too careful, or done his research. I dont think so.

Well I am an average guy, certainly not so well educated as you, and I completely understood this. The FACT is you thought you were going to make use of this "loophole" and save yourself the trouble and expense of meeting inperson. Which is a pretty stupid thing to do. The fact is you NEVER met the qualifications in any case. There is NO custom in your religion which prevents you from meeting your fiancee in person prior to marriage. It was an idiotic interpretation of the rule slanted to your benefit and I am glad it didn't work. I am no fan of the USCIS but I will criticize them for their real shortcomings, not my own. USCIS did exactly what they should and what I would expect in this case.

It is obvious this was not a mistake, this was an intentional attempt to avoid the correct procedure that the rest of us follow. What you are really telling us is "Don't try to bend or break the rules, it won't work" We know this.

If you continue to go through life, looking for a way around the correct procedures and then blaming others for your own dumb@ss behavior, you are going to have big problems, not just minor delays in processing.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

there was no reason for me to do an in depth research.

You're talking about making decisions that will drastically affect the lives of you and the woman you love for years to come! If you don't consider that a reason to do some serious research, you should seriously re-evaluate your priorities.

By the way, USCIS absolutely made the right call. You have to prove that your religion or culture absolutely prohibits you from meeting your spouse before you marry her. Your religion and culture do not place any such absolute prohibition on you. Even if you could satisfactorally prove that you are an adherent to some ulta-conservative sect of Islam, that still wouldn't be good enough because, as it has been pointed out to you many times, there is nothing in Islam that prohibits you from marrying a woman that you have met before. Muslims marry people that they have met all the time.

While it's true that Islam does look down upon premarital sex, so does just about every other organized religion on the planet. It's totally irrelevant because there is no requirement with the K-1 visa for you to have sex with your fiancee. You only have to see her in a room under the supervision of her parents. You know, like they do in Muslim countries all the time.

obviously the system has to be unclear if you are stating that research is required to complete an application for proper results LOLZ.. i thought it was supposed to be an application, not a science project

There isn't much research required for this particular question. Though for the process, yes, research is required. All you had to do was provide evidence that your religion prohibits fiance(e)s from meeting in person prior to marriage. Why didn't you submit it with the petition? Because it does not exist. The is NO such prohibition. THAT should have been your first clue.

No research required, it kinda hits you like a 2x4 in the head, doesn't it?

[ghosttridder 0]

obviously the system has to be unclear if you are stating that research is required to complete an application for proper results LOLZ.. i thought it was supposed to be an application, not a science project

If you really had that immature of an approach coming into this, it's no wonder your initial petition got denied.

Consider this - filing an I-129F petition means that, at the end of the process, you are getting MARRIED. That is a huge, adult commitment. Your attitude of "I shouldn't have to ask permission/do research/meet my fiancee/put in any effort beyond what's strictly required" shows a remarkable lack of said commitment. I honestly feel sorry for your wife.

You can argue that you are intelligent as much as you like but you are not showing us any proof of that, and failing to research the requirements of that clause shows an astounding amount of stupidity. A clause is a very specific part of a contract, and thus if you wish to have anything to do with it, it is in your best interest to find out the exact provisions that clause entails and meet the criteria for it.

I agree with Danu; your original post isn't helping in saying that nobody should use this clause because it doesn't work, but the information provided by subsequent posters which outlines what you should provide if you are eligible for this clause will be helpful. You, clearly, were not eligible and thus you were denied. Here's hoping that whoever is next to ask about the clause will not be naive enough to think that they can get by with next to no proof of their eligibility.

ok genius. you tell me, in what circumstances would it violate long term established customs and traditions to have formally met in person?

there was no reason for me to do an in depth research.

You're talking about making decisions that will drastically affect the lives of you and the woman you love for years to come! If you don't consider that a reason to do some serious research, you should seriously re-evaluate your priorities.

By the way, USCIS absolutely made the right call. You have to prove that your religion or culture absolutely prohibits you from meeting your spouse before you marry her. Your religion and culture do not place any such absolute prohibition on you. Even if you could satisfactorally prove that you are an adherent to some ulta-conservative sect of Islam, that still wouldn't be good enough because, as it has been pointed out to you many times, there is nothing in Islam that prohibits you from marrying a woman that you have met before. Muslims marry people that they have met all the time.

While it's true that Islam does look down upon premarital sex, so does just about every other organized religion on the planet. It's totally irrelevant because there is no requirement with the K-1 visa for you to have sex with your fiancee. You only have to see her in a room under the supervision of her parents. You know, like they do in Muslim countries all the time.

obviously the system has to be unclear if you are stating that research is required to complete an application for proper results LOLZ.. i thought it was supposed to be an application, not a science project

There isn't much research required for this particular question. Though for the process, yes, research is required. All you had to do was provide evidence that your religion prohibits fiance(e)s from meeting in person prior to marriage. Why didn't you submit it with the petition? Because it does not exist. The is NO such prohibition. THAT should have been your first clue.

No research required, it kinda hits you like a 2x4 in the head, doesn't it?

yes but a few knuckleheads lolz are saying that i should have "known" better, and that i should have done this and done that. I did submit the request for waiver along with the petition. why would i submit a lack of evidence. The research you mentioned, i did. what the other folks are referring to is a more in depth research. how was i to know that it was going to be extremely difficult to get? i didn't know, i had no way of knowing, it didn't state that anywhere. if i knew why would i have went through with it and gambled my life? it would have made sense for me to fly and get married then apply with a solid marriage petition? k1 they are under more scrutiny maybe because many people do fraud with k1 or maybe it is the fact that the two couples are just not yet married..

[Mike B. 231]

obviously the system has to be unclear if you are stating that research is required to complete an application for proper results LOLZ.. i thought it was supposed to be an application, not a science project

If you really had that immature of an approach coming into this, it's no wonder your initial petition got denied.

Consider this - filing an I-129F petition means that, at the end of the process, you are getting MARRIED. That is a huge, adult commitment. Your attitude of "I shouldn't have to ask permission/do research/meet my fiancee/put in any effort beyond what's strictly required" shows a remarkable lack of said commitment. I honestly feel sorry for your wife.

You can argue that you are intelligent as much as you like but you are not showing us any proof of that, and failing to research the requirements of that clause shows an astounding amount of stupidity. A clause is a very specific part of a contract, and thus if you wish to have anything to do with it, it is in your best interest to find out the exact provisions that clause entails and meet the criteria for it.

I agree with Danu; your original post isn't helping in saying that nobody should use this clause because it doesn't work, but the information provided by subsequent posters which outlines what you should provide if you are eligible for this clause will be helpful. You, clearly, were not eligible and thus you were denied. Here's hoping that whoever is next to ask about the clause will not be naive enough to think that they can get by with next to no proof of their eligibility.

ok genius. you tell me, in what circumstances would it violate long term established customs and traditions to have formally met in person?

there was no reason for me to do an in depth research.

You're talking about making decisions that will drastically affect the lives of you and the woman you love for years to come! If you don't consider that a reason to do some serious research, you should seriously re-evaluate your priorities.

By the way, USCIS absolutely made the right call. You have to prove that your religion or culture absolutely prohibits you from meeting your spouse before you marry her. Your religion and culture do not place any such absolute prohibition on you. Even if you could satisfactorally prove that you are an adherent to some ulta-conservative sect of Islam, that still wouldn't be good enough because, as it has been pointed out to you many times, there is nothing in Islam that prohibits you from marrying a woman that you have met before. Muslims marry people that they have met all the time.

While it's true that Islam does look down upon premarital sex, so does just about every other organized religion on the planet. It's totally irrelevant because there is no requirement with the K-1 visa for you to have sex with your fiancee. You only have to see her in a room under the supervision of her parents. You know, like they do in Muslim countries all the time.

obviously the system has to be unclear if you are stating that research is required to complete an application for proper results LOLZ.. i thought it was supposed to be an application, not a science project

There isn't much research required for this particular question. Though for the process, yes, research is required. All you had to do was provide evidence that your religion prohibits fiance(e)s from meeting in person prior to marriage. Why didn't you submit it with the petition? Because it does not exist. The is NO such prohibition. THAT should have been your first clue.

No research required, it kinda hits you like a 2x4 in the head, doesn't it?

yes but a few knuckleheads lolz are saying that i should have "known" better, and that i should have done this and done that. I did submit the request for waiver along with the petition. why would i submit a lack of evidence. The research you mentioned, i did. what the other folks are referring to is a more in depth research. how was i to know that it was going to be extremely difficult to get? i didn't know, i had no way of knowing, it didn't state that anywhere. if i knew why would i have went through with it and gambled my life? it would have made sense for me to fly and get married then apply with a solid marriage petition? k1 they are under more scrutiny maybe because many people do fraud with k1 or maybe it is the fact that the two couples are just not yet married..

If you didn't know it before, you know it now: federal immigration law and the mydrid of administrative regulations that affect immigrants can be somewhat complicated. I consider myself a "regular guy." I have a bachelor's degree but I'm not really that well-educated and I'm certainly not an immigration lawyer. When I proposed to me fiancee, who is a citizen of a foreign country, I thought to myself "gee, I might have to look up some things on immigration law since she's not an American. I think I'll go to the bookstore and look for a book on this kind of thing and then google some terms to see if there is a webpage about it." That's what I did.

It's not that I'm terribly interested in immigration law, it's just that my fiancee is the most important thing in my life and I don't want to totally screw her over by accidently putting her in a position where USCIS makes some adjudication against the two us. In my I-129F petition (which hasn't been approved yet, so who knows what will happen), I tried to err on the side of extreme caution with everything, because I understand that if I mess up something now or make a claim that is patently false, five years down the road it could come to haunt me if they decide something about my application was fradulent. I know that the odds of that are one in a million, but there's just no way that I'm going to give USCIS even a one in a million chance at deporting my wife. Period.

I often think about an article I read in the paper years and years ago. It was about a woman who came to the United States from Italy when she was an infant. Not knowing a word of Italian and having never even visited the country, she was detained and deportation proceedings were initiated against here when she was in her 40s. It turned out that her parents never correctly had her naturalized, and that by once jumping a turnstyle in the New York City subway system, she made herself into a "criminal alien" under the harsh 1996 immigration laws.

I know that true horror stories like this don't happen that often, but it always serves as a reminder to me that you absoutly have to do everything by the book. Minor mistakes can have disasterous consequences when you are talking about ensuring that the person you want to spend the rest of your life with is allowed to live in your country. Don't give USCIS the opportunity to mess around with you.

Fortunately for you your mistake didn't cause anyone to be deported or banned from entering, it just caused you a delay which you ultimately got around by marrying your wife. I really hope that you start seriously researching things and doing them by the book, though, or you could find yourself in a tight spot.

[Otto 83]

listen here. I'm not stupid. I believe i am very well educated, and i've read the reqs for applying. No where on the application informational packet did it warn me about how rare it is to get a waiver number

For years I wondered who these types of warning labels were intended for - now I know..

[pushbrk 12,767]

Although you may not like it, it is your own fault that you were denied. You had NO circumstances that would have fell under the scope of the exemption. While religion and customs may keep you from intimate contact, as stated before, they do NOT keep you from meeting. Therefore you did not qualify for the exemption as defined. As others have stated, this has in the past been an abused exemption and the USCIS gives it a lot more scrutiny. The best way to help prevent any denial, is to arm yourself with knowledge on whatever Visa you decide to try for. You can keep trying to lay the blame on USCIS or anyone else you want. But, it's all smoke and mirrors trying to draw the blame away from yourself.

I strongly disagree here. Under no area was I at fault. I was under false impression, mislead by a statement that the uscis has stated in the application petition. Yes, requirement states that we should have met in person.

and again, i am going to reiterate what the second misleading clause here is.

USCIS states and i quote: "If this VIOLATES long establish customs and traditions" then this may be waived.

well it is a long established custom and tradition that the groom and the bride do not get it on until after the wedding night. We dont have babies then get married, we honor marriages, then start families. Most bride & groom will not have met in this traditional type of union until after the wedding. Some bride and groom, will have just a verbal relationship to get to know their personalities. Some will just see the pictures and go off of what their relatives say about the groom or bride and trust their word on how the marriage candidate is.. and it goes on..

this statement is to vague and needs to be more specific

let me tell you about something here, this here is extremely misleading ESPECIALLY for people who do arrange marriages, or regular cultural marriages, because what it is implying here is that, uscis may waive the requirment that you need to have met in person. ( i know this does not have to be intimate)

uscis does not need to be telling people they may waive this when it is extremely hard to get a waiver, because then people will start to think automatically, to do a finace visa, then get married here in the states as what it was in my case.

I definately understand it is frusterating and I'm sure this post will help others. The key for everyone to remember is what you wrote in this sentance:

"well it is a long established custom and tradition that the groom and the bride do not get it on until after the wedding night"

That is the only part that is established. There are very very few places where meeting is completely forbidden, and in those places you need letters from both sets of parents as well as that sects religious leader stating that meeting in person is strictly prohibited. Those are the only ones that make it through on this really, and USCIS knows what areas those religious sects are from. Unfortunately most or a lot does not equal all, and in USCIS's eyes unless it is the same for everyone in that region and not just for some people who choose not to meet instead of it being forbidden, it doesn't count. I think thats why some people are being a little short with you. It is and isn't your fault at the same time. You were under the wrong assumption, but thats not USCIS's fault either. You can meet without having sex, USCIS is not asking you "have you slept together in the last 2 years?" I'm sure there are others who have not and still have met, with family chaperones and such to establish contact without doing anything else. Unfortunately your posts just come off as sounding like if you went to visit you would have ended up having sex, which is just dumb, and even though you keep mentioning that you know the meeting didnt have to be intimate you gave no other reasoning for not being able to visit your fiance even once, or taking the way USCIS said "if MEETING will violate long standing customs and traditions" to mean anything else.

Getting upset with people who are trying to explain what USCIS ment by it doesn't really help you, the only way you are going to be able to file for a K1 is to meet or be physically unable to get anywhere (including Canada or Mexico) to meet, or to have your religious leader state that under no circumstances do people from your famiies area and relgion ever meet before getting married as that would be against your beliefs.

I am not getting upset.

I just want people know honestly my experience. I know what I know, I am not making this up. I know what I went through, and at the time of my application I really had thought that this waiver was going to apply to me, and it turned out to be an entirely different story. I would hope that my postings would help other people rather than people come on here and say, it's my fault. I dont see it that way, because i applied with a straight consciounce. Now i would do otherwise because now i know how terrible this process is

Two key mistakes to face up to.

1. You had no grounds to waive the "meeting" requirement, as "meeting" is not against your customs in any way.

2. Never read "may" as "will".