Inspired by a thread in K-1 forum

[Fischkoepfin 1]

But what if the USC can't travel (medical reasons) and the foreign fiance(e) comes from one of those countries where you need an invitation for a B2-visa and his/her request for a visitor-visa is denied on the grounds that she could decide to stay?

Or similarly, what if the USC can't travel and the foreign partner is denied entry at POE on VWP or B2 based on lack of financial resources or lack of prove that she/he needs to return to home country?

In both cases, the partner has shown a willingness to visit, but was denied a visa or entry which is not her/his fault. I would think that USCIS should make an exception in these cases since the fault lies with USCIS.

[pax 0]

In those rare and extraordinary cases, sure.

[Keigwyn 1]

But what if the USC can't travel (medical reasons) and the foreign fiance(e) comes from one of those countries where you need an invitation for a B2-visa and his/her request for a visitor-visa is denied on the grounds that she could decide to stay?

Or similarly, what if the USC can't travel and the foreign partner is denied entry at POE on VWP or B2 based on lack of financial resources or lack of prove that she/he needs to return to home country?

In both cases, the partner has shown a willingness to visit, but was denied a visa or entry which is not her/his fault. I would think that USCIS should make an exception in these cases since the fault lies with USCIS.

Provided that they can prove they at least attempted this route, otherwise I am with pax on this. Meeting is a requirement just like the I-134 / I-864

[Fischkoepfin 1]

But what if the USC can't travel (medical reasons) and the foreign fiance(e) comes from one of those countries where you need an invitation for a B2-visa and his/her request for a visitor-visa is denied on the grounds that she could decide to stay?

Or similarly, what if the USC can't travel and the foreign partner is denied entry at POE on VWP or B2 based on lack of financial resources or lack of prove that she/he needs to return to home country?

In both cases, the partner has shown a willingness to visit, but was denied a visa or entry which is not her/his fault. I would think that USCIS should make an exception in these cases since the fault lies with USCIS.

Provided that they can prove they at least attempted this route, otherwise I am with pax on this. Meeting is a requirement just like the I-134 / I-864

I agree; I actually can't imagine marrying someone I've never met in person. Communicating over the net or the phone only goes so far...

[aussiewench 9]

What did stand out with most of those denials in the link is that it was primarily only the USC that gave a reason why they personally couldnt travel to meet the other and failed to also give a reason why the beneficiary could not. Stands to reason why they got the denials. Obviously they didnt read enough or bother to find out the necessary requirements.....Both parties for starters needed a qualifying reason.

[pax 0]

I think this one is my favorite:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/adminde...905_02d6101.pdf

"If things don't work out, I'll just send her back to the Philippines."

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

But what if the USC can't travel (medical reasons) and the foreign fiance(e) comes from one of those countries where you need an invitation for a B2-visa and his/her request for a visitor-visa is denied on the grounds that she could decide to stay?

Or similarly, what if the USC can't travel and the foreign partner is denied entry at POE on VWP or B2 based on lack of financial resources or lack of prove that she/he needs to return to home country?

In both cases, the partner has shown a willingness to visit, but was denied a visa or entry which is not her/his fault. I would think that USCIS should make an exception in these cases since the fault lies with USCIS.

Meet is a third country that fits everything.

[Kajikit 65]

I agree it'd be unusual but if the USC was medically barred from travel and the beneficiary couldnt AFFORD it (thus not touching the support issues as its the USC who must provide support for the non-USC) that surely would qualify?

That was our position five years ago when my fiance asked me to marry him and we applied for a visa... they laughed in our face and wouldn't even take the application and told him to come back when we'd met. It was three years before I was in a position to be able to go there...

No doubt their position is that if one person is medically unable to travel (my fiance has a history of bloodclots and very poor circulation in his legs and a plane flight would be extremely risky to his health) then that person should be able to finance the other person's trip if THEY can't afford to come (I was on a pension and couldn't possibly afford a plane ticket from Australia to the US)... in our case that wasn't possible either because my fiance worked for a christian charity organisation getting paid minimum wage, with room and board thrown in in lieu of salary, and one of the strict rules of the organisation was no overnight guests and ESPECIALLY 'NO MONKEY BUSINESS' and he couldn't possibly have brought me over until he got another job and found a place for us to live. So we just had to wait patiently for a very long time until our circumstances both changed.

In the end it was two years before he got an appropriate job etc, and another year before we met, and then I came home and we applied for the visa right away. I don't think our marriage would have turned out any differently if they'd let us be together sooner but we would have been saved a LOT of painful waiting time.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Kajikit

[Andy 2]

Actually, I think the issue is far more simple than we seem to be making it. It's nothing much to do with support or financial issues, nor possible medical problems preventing travel. It is, as was touched upon briefly, a simple question of whether there can be a reasonable ground for an intention to marry if the couple have not met.

What the USCIS are basically saying is that if the couple have NOT met, there had better be more than ample explanation as to why meeting that condition is not practical, and how the couple can have reached a reasoned commitment to each other in the absence of personal contact.

[pax 0]

I don't think anyone is oversimplifying that issue, Andy. In fact, if you read the thread that this one spun off from, you'll find that plenty of people, including myself, advised the OP that maybe it wasn't the wisest thing in the world to agree to marry someone you'd never met.

[Kajikit 65]

That's true Andy... knowing my husband's love of paperwork (not) he quite probably wrote one sentence that said 'I can't afford to fly to Australia so we need a waiver'... he also didn't seem to realise the necessity for providing actual physical information when it came to the application, which was why we ended up with two RFEs when we actually applied! There wasn't any problem on my end...

[pedroh 21]

That's not weird... that's an expensive fact of life and a real bar to travel for some people (like my husband!)

There are lots of people who are medically unable to travel for various reasons, but the USCIS doesn't care.

I'm with the Swirl. It is weird. If you can't (or won't) make the effort to visit your potential spouse in person, then you have no business getting married. Religious restrictions aside.

ditto.. if u cant afford to visit the SO how the hell are u gonna afford to live together.. love aint all sweets and kisses..u cant eat and pay bills with love and good will

Edited February 15, 2006 by pedroh

[Andy 2]

I don't think anyone is oversimplifying that issue, Andy. In fact, if you read the thread that this one spun off from, you'll find that plenty of people, including myself, advised the OP that maybe it wasn't the wisest thing in the world to agree to marry someone you'd never met.

I beg to differ. The bulk of contributions here are focussed on something entirely different than the simple fact the US immigration system has a (usually) reasonable expectation that people who decide to marry would have to know each other well enough to reach that conclusion, and that in the absence of any more definitive measure of it, that having met recently is the yardstick.

It's entirely pertinent advice to suggest to a couple that haven't met and that have a wish to pursue an immigration case that they really OUGHT to if there is any possibility of it being achievable - I wasn't contradicting that view at all, merely stating that seeking a waiver by explaining WHY a meeting isn't possible isn't likely to cut it in the absence of a strong argument in support of the relationship never-the-less being genuine.

[Kajikit 65]

In this electronic age of long-distance communication don't you think they should make some allowances for contact OTHER than face-to-face? We spent two to four hours on the telephone EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR THREE YEARS and countless hours more talking on ICQ - but 12 hours sitting in the same room with a chaperone counts for more? You can really get to know somebody without the physical element to get in the way. I honestly don't see why it should make such a difference to spend two minutes together 'in person'.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Kajikit

[pax 0]

I beg to differ. The bulk of contributions here are focussed on something entirely different than the simple fact the US immigration system has a (usually) reasonable expectation that people who decide to marry would have to know each other well enough to reach that conclusion, and that in the absence of any more definitive measure of it, that having met recently is the yardstick.

It's entirely pertinent advice to suggest to a couple that haven't met and that have a wish to pursue an immigration case that they really OUGHT to if there is any possibility of it being achievable - I wasn't contradicting that view at all, merely stating that seeking a waiver by explaining WHY a meeting isn't possible isn't likely to cut it in the absence of a strong argument in support of the relationship never-the-less being genuine.

Maybe because that should be blindingly obvious to anyone filing for a fiance/e visa?

I don't think anyone here is missing the point that it's hard, if not impossible, to establish a genuine relationship without having met in person.