Never met my fiance but sent in the K-1 application

[Dakine 26]

More like! Slim and none!

I've kicked around on immigration forums a LONG time and have yet to see anyone pull off getting a K1 without having met.

Handicaped and religious trip don't hack it!

Good reason for the rule as LOTS of peeps who fall in love with LDRs "fall out" when they meet in person.

"TRY THE SHOE ON TO MAKE SURE IT FITS IN "ALL" WAYS"

[Sonshyne 2]

We met online on March 2005 but we have never met in person. I have already filed the K-129f forms. What are our chances?

Chances are next to none

[TracyTN 237]

Just out of curiosity, if USCIS did approve this petition (lets assume the Adjudicator overlooked the fact they did not meet in person) would the Embassy allow the visa to be granted if they were aware that the petitioner and applicant did not meet in in person?

It has been said that the ConOff's job is not to readjudicate the petition... So they may in fact not refuse to issue the visa on that particular issue but may refuse to issue based on lack of a bonafide relationship and therefore return the petition to the states for review. In the end the same result and it is possible......

This is a much better description of what I was trying to say - thanks my friend!

[pushbrk 12,752]

Just out of curiosity, if USCIS did approve this petition (lets assume the Adjudicator overlooked the fact they did not meet in person) would the Embassy allow the visa to be granted if they were aware that the petitioner and applicant did not meet in in person?

It has been said that the ConOff's job is not to readjudicate the petition... So they may in fact not refuse to issue the visa on that particular issue but may refuse to issue based on lack of a bonafide relationship and therefore return the petition to the states for review. In the end the same result and it is possible......

This is a much better description of what I was trying to say - thanks my friend!

I would agree, but in reality, the USCIS staff failing to notice the couple hasn't met in person is akin to a 100 pound woman not noticing she's nine months pregnant. For a K1 petition, meeting in person is right at the top of the list of things to verify along with proof the petitioner is a USC and that the fee is paid.

[garya505 2]

Um, this is a joke, right?

[YuAndDan 153]

The chances are very close to ZERO of approval. for extreme hardship they will counter your fiancee could have visited you.

Provide copies of evidence that you and your fiancé(e) have personally met within the last two years;

or if you have never met within the last two years, provide a detailed explanation and evidence of the extreme hardship or customary, cultural or social practices that have prohibited your meeting;

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/men...00045f3d6a1RCRD

[kitkat1 5]

Does anyone really believe that this is NOT a troll? Yes there are a lot of dumbos out there -- but this is a case where the I-129F makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that you have to prove you've met in the prior two years and describe that meeting. The form even clearly says "Explain also in detail any reasons you may have for requesting that the requirement that you and your fiancé(e) must have met should not apply to you".

I don't believe a real applicant filling out the form would just decide to skip that part.

My call = TROLL

[Aymerlu 3]

I'm with the others. You HAVE to meet before you can file. Sorry, but your case will be denied

[TracyTN 237]

Does anyone really believe that this is NOT a troll? Yes there are a lot of dumbos out there -- but this is a case where the I-129F makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that you have to prove you've met in the prior two years and describe that meeting. The form even clearly says "Explain also in detail any reasons you may have for requesting that the requirement that you and your fiancé(e) must have met should not apply to you".

I don't believe a real applicant filling out the form would just decide to skip that part.

My call = TROLL

That made me snort diet pepsi out my nose!

[kitkat1 5]

Does anyone really believe that this is NOT a troll? Yes there are a lot of dumbos out there -- but this is a case where the I-129F makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that you have to prove you've met in the prior two years and describe that meeting. The form even clearly says "Explain also in detail any reasons you may have for requesting that the requirement that you and your fiancé(e) must have met should not apply to you".

I don't believe a real applicant filling out the form would just decide to skip that part.

My call = TROLL

That made me snort diet pepsi out my nose!

Hee hee - well seriously - this person would have to be one of the world's biggest idiots. Sorry - I just don't buy it.

[eric_and_teresa 10]

Does anyone really believe that this is NOT a troll? Yes there are a lot of dumbos out there -- but this is a case where the I-129F makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that you have to prove you've met in the prior two years and describe that meeting. The form even clearly says "Explain also in detail any reasons you may have for requesting that the requirement that you and your fiancé(e) must have met should not apply to you".

I don't believe a real applicant filling out the form would just decide to skip that part.

My call = TROLL

I agree. It's hard to believe that someone would start a process like this, without reading the very basic instructions that are on the same form he filled out.

Edited August 15, 2007 by eric_and_teresa

[no name 1]

It's hard to believe that someone would start a process like this, without reading the very basic instructions that are on the same form he filled.

Have you read much on VJ lately?

Edited August 15, 2007 by devilette

[Caladan 19]

Does anyone really believe that this is NOT a troll? Yes there are a lot of dumbos out there -- but this is a case where the I-129F makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that you have to prove you've met in the prior two years and describe that meeting. The form even clearly says "Explain also in detail any reasons you may have for requesting that the requirement that you and your fiancé(e) must have met should not apply to you".

I don't believe a real applicant filling out the form would just decide to skip that part.

My call = TROLL

I'd be inclined to agree except that I don't believe 90% of applicants read the instructions.

To the OP: if you haven't met in person, you'd have to demonstrate conclusively to USCIS why you haven't done so. You'd have to show either a religious or cultural reason that you couldn't meet (not just that you couldn't be alone together, but that you weren't permitted to meet), or you'd have to show something like a medical reason that prevented you from going to see her, and a reason that she couldn't come to see you, or that neither of you could go to a third country to meet. I don't remember the link, but there is a link that lists a bunch of arguments people have used. I can think of one success (disabled USC unable to travel at all, beneficiary unable to come to visit)... but who knows if they were able to demonstrate a bonafide relationship at the interview.

[KarenCee 3]

Does anyone really believe that this is NOT a troll? Yes there are a lot of dumbos out there -- but this is a case where the I-129F makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that you have to prove you've met in the prior two years and describe that meeting. The form even clearly says "Explain also in detail any reasons you may have for requesting that the requirement that you and your fiancé(e) must have met should not apply to you".

I don't believe a real applicant filling out the form would just decide to skip that part.

My call = TROLL

This was my first thought as well...and it sorta strengthens this train of thought since the OP hasn't been back.

[eric_and_teresa 10]

It's hard to believe that someone would start a process like this, without reading the very basic instructions that are on the same form he filled.

Have you read much on VJ lately?

What do you mean? Sorry, but english is not my first language and sometimes I don't get the jokes