REF at USCIS pretty specific. Why?

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

But when you're mingling cultures, an explanation for why something that is the cultural norm in one place not being done is generally a good idea. If it were a cultural norm for bride and groom to, I don't know, dance to Waltzing Matilda with a tame kangaroo* in Australian weddings, and it was so rare to not do that in Australia that an Australian couple would have to explain it to friends/family, then it would make sense that my husband and I would have to explain why we didn't dance to Waltzing Matilda with a tame kangaroo at our wedding. ("We weren't in Australia, so tame kangaroos that waltz were not readily available." "As Buddhists, our religious requirements didn't allow for waltzing kangaroos." "Given that we are committed to animal rights, we could not in good conscience expose anyone, human or animal, to the earworm of Waltzing Matilda.")

Explaining a difference from the prevailing culture of a region is also a good way to show that you and your (future) spouse have discussed the important cultural differences between you. ("Yes, honey, I know that waltzing kangaroos are important to you, but I really hate that song. Maybe we could dance with the kangaroo to a Savage Garden song, instead?")

*Work with me here; I was trying to go for the most non-sensical, non-any specific culture thing I could think of.

If I have otherwise flawless evidence of a bona fide marriage, meet all requirements and the eligibility has been established

then in my humble opinion why we don't dance to Waltzing Matilda with a tame kangaroo is between me and my spouse and

not my government.

I resent being put in the proverbial box labeled stereotypical cultural wedding . Screw that and pardon my French.

And good luck convincing the government... they just may not believe you and assume you are a fraud with an absent kangaroo,

get my drift ? Way too many archaic assumptions and speculation happening and it makes me sick and tired of the entire process.

Signed #Runningtheobstaclecourseandhavingburnout.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Now, if the documents aren't meeting the requirements, there is not sufficient supporting evidence and something is truly amiss,

then by all means blame the kangaroo in absentia, however telling me outright what is specifically wrong rather than a
generic check list including the kangaroo is not efficient by my government. Did I just say efficient and government in the same

sentence ?

[pushbrk 12,882]

If a laundry list contains both boxers and briefs, and you only wear briefs, don't interpret the question as if you are required to also wear boxers to get you petition approved.

It's a mistake, IMO, to interpret a "question" or something on a list of possible items to provide evidence about, that the asking of the question or the inclusion on the list, means there is some requirement associated with the question or inclusion. There is not.

Asking if you danced to Waltzing Matilda is not an indication that if you didn't, you have a problem. It's just a question. Whether you should explain why you didn't, would be circumstantial, not universal.

Treat the list like a list. Provide what you can and skip what you can't. If an explanation of why you can't provide one or more items, seems to be a good idea, provide the explanation.

Edited June 16, 2014 by pushbrk

[kehills 217]

"Is generally a good idea" != "is a necessity." If you don't get an RFE, then obviously not waltzing with a kangaroo, and not mentioning it, isn't an issue. But if you do get an RFE, and the RFE gives a list of things that they feel indicate a legitimate relationship, and one of those things is waltzing with a kangaroo, then you shouldn't be surprised if they do want an explanation for why you didn't.

Likewise, it shouldn't be surprising to be asked about something that's non-culturally normative in an interview. Because for better or worse, there is a list of legitimacy that each relationship is being judged against. Be prepared for it, know how to handle it, and don't be surprised if someone asks for clarification if you step outside of the norm.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

"Is generally a good idea" != "is a necessity." If you don't get an RFE, then obviously not waltzing with a kangaroo, and not mentioning it, isn't an issue. But if you do get an RFE, and the RFE gives a list of things that they feel indicate a legitimate relationship, and one of those things is waltzing with a kangaroo, then you shouldn't be surprised if they do want an explanation for why you didn't.

Likewise, it shouldn't be surprising to be asked about something that's non-culturally normative in an interview. Because for better or worse, there is a list of legitimacy that each relationship is being judged against. Be prepared for it, know how to handle it, and don't be surprised if someone asks for clarification if you step outside of the norm.

That is my point. These supposed legit yard sticks (read old field manual) are archaic.

I am an individual who steps out of cultural norms and pursue my individuality but always remain within air tight regulation above

and beyond with solid quality evidence and that should be the end of it. I should not be penalized for not swimming in the 'main stream.'

If you feel it is totally appropriate to plan your wedding ceremony according to 'cultural acceptance' to please the government

then more power to you. I happen to think it is too much interference in my personal life and choices and what kangaroo I dance or

don't dance with is nobody's business.

Sure, let them ask for 'clarification' all they want IF something is amiss but unfortunately the truth is that many cases get refused because of

stupid baseless assumptions and speculative biased beliefs.

Sorry to break it to you but no gov system is not perfect and all I am saying is improve it and modernize it without these silly

stereotypes of what must fit the box of cultural main stream.....it's like step out of it and you are in a land mine field.

[pushbrk 12,882]

Opinions about how things should be, when they are not that way, do not help the members have a successful process. While many of us would agree with your "shoulds", they are actually off-topic, in this forum. We have a forum for such discussion but this isn't it.