Important Advice for NEW K1 Filers

[TBoneTX 44,934]

Under what circumstances would the it violate

Sir, how can anyone answer a question that cannot be understood? To what specific "it" do you refer?

[thetreble 19]

What a spectacle! I can't even comment without saying something really hurtful so.... I really won't.

But if the OP has his ducks in a row now, why are you even complaining? It's fixed, right? There is nothing I can't stand more than someone who works out a problem but continues to talk about how much of a hardship it was to fix that problem.

Honestly..move on.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Member grapeyes writes:

Ok, my husband had his medical in London today. The doctor told him he failed due to high blood pressure. She said that he would have to see his regular doctor, get his blood pressure down, then take the medical over again (paying their fee again). In reading the statute, blood pressure is not a valid reason to deny the medical. I have no idea what to do next. This really really is heart breaking. I need my husband. Its been so long already. Any suggestions please, I don't know what we can do next. Below is a copy of the statute.

why don't all you uscis immigration process lovers go explain to him/her what she did wrong, and why it is her fault. lolz!

Medicals are done by the state department, NOT USCIS. I suppose you would hound USCIS for this for at least 8 months before you figured that out. You are truly a dumbazz

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

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..

But WAIT!!!! The plug indicated in the drawing is clearly an American/Canadian plug, not the European type. So would this warning label apply to European hair dryers and bathtubs? Do I need to research this? Is this a warning label or a science project? OMG, how can I function???????

[thetreble 19]

But WAIT!!!! The plug indicated in the drawing is clearly an American/Canadian plug, not the European type. So would this warning label apply to European hair dryers and bathtubs? Do I need to research this? Is this a warning label or a science project? OMG, how can I function???????

The internetz is your friend, ghost.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

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..

But WAIT!!!! The plug indicated in the drawing is clearly an American/Canadian plug, not the European type. So would this warning label apply to European hair dryers and bathtubs? Do I need to research this? Is this a warning label or a science project? OMG, how can I function???????

OMG!!

[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..

But WAIT!!!! The plug indicated in the drawing is clearly an American/Canadian plug, not the European type. So would this warning label apply to European hair dryers and bathtubs? Do I need to research this? Is this a warning label or a science project? OMG, how can I function???????

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

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..

I am not aware of any religions that prohibit a man and woman meeting in person prior to marriage. Certainly NOT your religion, so why would you assume you are special and did not need to meet? Sheeesh.

Clearly you just tried a way to avoid the trouble and expense.

[Krikit 1,164]

Okay. I think this thread has run its course. Closing for personal attacks and refusal to obey the warning.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Krikit