Fiance Interview experience in Pakistan
farhan
this is from my memory - i was too excited to even pay attention to what
Fiance was saying.. :D
1. She arrived around 7ish for interview, interview was suppose to start
at 8am. There were around 2000+ people there (she thinks there were
350-400 interviews scheduled - Only 10 visas for issued that day and
those visas were K1, K3.. and no visit etc.)
2. She was interviewed by 3 ladies (2 Pakistanies and 1 American)
- American spoke good Urdu so she didn't have hard time during
the interview
3. Lady #1: Asked a lot of question and took notes.. most of her
questions for related to "how do you know him, where will you live,
what does he do, how do you know the family.. etc."
4. Lady #2: Asked the same questions and took notes
5. Lady #3 (American): Asked same questions, but also asked for phone
bills.. and towards the end she said "You should marry him within 3
months after getting this visa.. " smiled and asked her to wait an
hour for the visa.
Now i am confused, they asked for Visa fee again (i already paid here -
it was around $105) - weird... Fiance showed them the recipt too but
they said its for this interview.. anyhoo, I already told her if they
ask for money, just give it to them...
They Stamp the passport and gave here brown envolope.
Thats all..
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Leslie66
Are you sure you paid here? I thought they HAD to pay at the embassy.
I guess what I'm saying is who would you pay here? The visa wasn't
granted yet.
Leslie
Originally posted by farhan
CharlieS
Originally posted by farhan
> Now i am confused, they asked for Visa fee again (i already paid here
> - it was around $105) - weird... Fiance showed them the recipt too but
> they said its for this interview.. anyhoo, I already told her if they
> ask for money, just give it to them...
> They Stamp the passport and gave here brown envolope.
> Thats all..
Good news, very happy for you.
As for paying again, that would so be my attitude. You want a thousand
dollars, and i get my visa? Sure, cash or charge? :D
saadq17
Congratulations Farhaan! All the best to you and your wife.
--saadq17
Originally posted by farhan
mrtravel
>
> Now i am confused, they asked for Visa fee again (i already paid here -
> it was around $105) - weird... Fiance showed them the recipt too but
> they said its for this interview.. anyhoo, I already told her if they
> ask for money, just give it to them...
Are you confusing the visa application fee, $100 (but varies due to
currency conversions), with the fees for the I-129F?
The I-129F fee goes to the immigration people (CIS), the application fee
gets paid to the Department of State.
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by saadq17
> Congratulations Farhaan! All the best to you and your wife.
>
> --saadq17
Hi:
IMHO, "congratulations" are NOT in order for this particular case. He
got away with something in getting the I-129F approved and he knows it.
As far as I am concerned, that poisons the rest of his case.
I am no friend of the DHS and the Department of State, but I do have
strong feelings about compliance with the law.
--
Certified Specialist
Immigration & Nat. Law
Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
farhan
Originally posted by Mrtravel
> farhan wrote:
>
> >
>
>
Well when i submitted 129F paper work, i remember sending them a check
of 100+ - I guess they also charge for interview too.
Steffi
Originally posted by farhan
> Well when i submitted 129F paper work, i remember sending them a check
> of 100+ - I guess they also charge for interview too.
Yeah, we had to pay $110 for the I-129F Fiance Petition, and then 67.00
GBP (~$100.00??) for the "visa processing fee"...and another 125.00 GBP
for the medical...I guess Pakistan doesn't require medicals?
Steffi
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
> IMHO, "congratulations" are NOT in order for this particular case. He
> got away with something in getting the I-129F approved and he knows
> it. As far as I am concerned, that poisons the rest of his
> case.
Did I miss something??
Leslie66
What law did he break?
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
> Hi:
>
> IMHO, "congratulations" are NOT in order for this particular case. He
> got away with something in getting the I-129F approved and he knows
> it. As far as I am concerned, that poisons the rest of his case.
>
I am no friend of the DHS and the Department of State, but I do have
strong feelings about compliance with the law.
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Pallyn
This was from one of his original posts -
I personally not have seen my fiance in person (beside webcam etc.), as
this is arrange marriage and Plan is/was that when i visit Pakistan in
Oct, i will meet her, have religious gathering and then come to US and
marry. Her parents are OK with that and are willing to do that.
So, how should i reply to this RFE? My culture and religion (Muslim)
prohibits us from meeting. So i am not sure how to word it and what kind
of evidence should i attached to the reply.
From where I sit, he was talking out of both sides of his mouth at this
earlier point. Customs prevent them from meeting before marrying, but
he was going to meet her and have a 'religous gathering' before bringing
her to the US for marriage. Either the customs don't really prohibit
meeting before marriage, or the 'religious gathering' was a marriage.
Now, I know that some folks do religious ceremonies that are not
recognized as legal marriages, but this one was enough to lift the ban
on meeting before marriage?
If he never went to meet her and have the religious gathering, then he
is abiding by both the customs as he laid them out and the requirements
for a K-1 visa.
Noorah101
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
> Hi:
>
> IMHO, "congratulations" are NOT in order for this particular case. He
> got away with something in getting the I-129F approved and he knows
> it. As far as I am concerned, that poisons the rest of his case.
>
> I am no friend of the DHS and the Department of State, but I do have
> strong feelings about compliance with the law.
There IS the clause that allows for very specific reasons to have the
requirement of meeting within 2 years waived. Although a lot of people
on the NG didn't agree that it was applicable in his case, evidently he
could prove to the consulate to their satisfaction that he should be
waived from that requirement. It was the consulate's decision to grant
the visa. They could just have well said no. He took a chance, and he
won. I don't see anything wrong with that, personally.
Rene
Leslie66
Thanks Pallyn,
That was really interesting. In general, the "Muslim religion" does
not prohibit meeting before the wedding. He would have to get a lot
more specific with the faction he is a member of, and perhaps he did in
his RFE. I find it strange that their religion allows them to see and
talk to each other on web cam, but not meet in person, that is a bit of
a stretch. There is a lot here that I do not know so I will reserve
judgement, but now I do understand a little bit more of what
Folinskyinla was talking about.
Leslie
Originally posted by Pallyn
> My culture and religion (Muslim) prohibits us from meeting. So i am
> not sure how to word it and what kind of evidence should i attached
> to the reply.
>
farhan
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
> Hi:
>
> IMHO, "congratulations" are NOT in order for this particular case. He
> got away with something in getting the I-129F approved and he knows
> it. As far as I am concerned, that poisons the rest of his case.
>
> I am no friend of the DHS and the Department of State, but I do have
> strong feelings about compliance with the law.
you are pissed because you were proved wrong, i hope you have better
people skills because you have crappy attitude, because nobody will ever
hire you with such attitude - you claimed that our case will never get
approved, and how i am holding "loaded" hand grande, wasting everybody's
time etc. Its sucks to be wrong eh?
We didn't lie about anything, we pleaed our case and proved it on the
basis of culture etc. What law do you think i break? I am not
married, I am engaged, Interviewer knew we never met ... so i am
missing the point?
anyhoo- you are stupid and should reconsider you career path ..
farhan
Originally posted by Pallyn
>
>
>
<I am explaining this not to prove myself but help anybody who have
similar issue in the future>
After talking to Islamic Center in US - there was no clause preventing
us to meet, Islam actually encourages it (i didn't know that then).. so
i didn't choose that route. I used culture restrictions argument,
because it was true. I am from very strick cultural family and was not
allowed to see my fiance in person but was given pictures and permission
to call her. I also used couple of cases that were approved in similar
circumtances and used US Library of Congress articles documenting that
"man and woman are not allowed to meet before engagement/marriage" - Our
engagement was in Dec... and I applied for 129F in jan.. and provided
phone bills, letters, emails, cards, gifts recipt to prove that i want
to marry my girl and also provided a letter from her family approving
for her to come here and marry me after the approval.
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by farhan
> you are pissed because you were proved wrong, i hope you have better
> people skills because you have crappy attitude, because nobody will
> ever hire you with such attitude - you claimed that our case will
> never get approved, and how i am holding "loaded" hand grande, wasting
> everybody's time etc. Its sucks to be wrong eh?
>
> We didn't lie about anything, we pleaed our case and proved it on the
> basis of culture etc. What law do you think i break? I am not
> married, I am engaged, Interviewer knew we never met ... so i am
> missing the point?
>
> anyhoo- you are stupid and should reconsider you career path ..
>
Hi:
In your next posting, you freely admit what you did. And you think I
was proven "wrong." Your case still has that "hand grenade" in it.
I happen to be one of those lawyers who fights like hell for my clients
but within the law.
You are entitled to your belief that it is "wrong" to comply with the
law and a belief in complying with the law is "wrong" and "sucks."
When I make a mistake, I admit it. You on the other hand look at like a
game of what you can get away with.
I wish your wife all the best.
mrtravel
>
> After talking to Islamic Center in US - there was no clause preventing
> us to meet, Islam actually encourages it (i didn't know that then).. so
> i didn't choose that route. I used culture restrictions argument,
> because it was true. I am from very strick cultural family
It is interesting that you would follow the cultural argument rather
than the recommended path of Islam, but its your life.
Paul Gani
meeting rule. He argued his case to the proper adjudicating agent(s), and
they agreed his case qualified. I'm sure the Consulate in Pakistan has
handled lots of meeting waivers.
What exactly is the "hand grenade" in his case that doesn't exist in *any*
case where the meeting exception clause is applied for and granted?
Paulgani
"Folinskyinla" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:1054287.1...@britishexpats.com...
>
> Originally posted by farhan
> > We didn't lie about anything, we pleaed our case and proved it on the
> > basis of culture etc. What law do you think i break? I am not
> > married, I am engaged, Interviewer knew we never met ... so i am
> > missing the point?
>
mrtravel
Paul Gani wrote:
> I must admit I am baffled. The law seems to provide exceptions for the
> meeting rule. He argued his case to the proper adjudicating agent(s), and
> they agreed his case qualified. I'm sure the Consulate in Pakistan has
> handled lots of meeting waivers.
>
> What exactly is the "hand grenade" in his case that doesn't exist in *any*
> case where the meeting exception clause is applied for and granted?
>
He told CIS that he couldn't meet his fiance before the marriage, but he
said in his earlier post that he will "meet her, have religious
gathering,......then come to the US to marry".
This doesn't sound like a cultural requirement preventing him from
meeting his fiance before he gets married. His steps
1. Prearrange bethrohal
2. Meeting in Pakinstan
3. Religious ceremony
4. Come to US
5. Get married
This means he could have filed for K-1 between steps 2 and 4.
He lied to CIS.
*********************************************
I personally not have seen my fiance in person (beside webcam etc.),
> as this is arrange marriage and Plan is/was that when i visit Pakistan
> in Oct, i will meet her, have religious gathering and then come to US
> and marry. Her parents are OK with that and are willing to do that.
********************************************8
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by Paul Gani
> I must admit I am baffled. The law seems to provide exceptions for
> the
> meeting rule. He argued his case to the proper adjudicating
> agent(s), and
> they agreed his case qualified. I'm sure the Consulate in
> Pakistan has
> handled lots of meeting waivers.
>
> What exactly is the "hand grenade" in his case that doesn't exist
> in *any*
> case where the meeting exception clause is applied for and granted?
>
> Paulgani
Paul:
You are quite correct that the law provides for exceptions and that
Farhan argued his case to the proper authorities. But he freely admits
that he researched the law, figured out what would work and then
tailored a LIE to comport with the law. I have not detected one iota
of remorse from Farhan for his admitted deception.
In my experience, I have found lies by the applicants to be "hand
grenades" in a case which can explode years later -- often at a
naturalization application. Let me give you a case example:
I am currently engaged in a Court of Appeals case where my client's U.S.
Citizen husband lied in HIS immigration to the US over 20 years ago. He
has now been in the US military for 18 years and has achieved high
enlisted rank and is now a combat veteran of TWO wars. Well, he may
have very well gotten away with it, but DHS is going after HER. This is
a valid marriage with many children. The US citizen has honorably
served the US and has put his life on the line for all of us -- but his
lie from long ago is hurting his wife.
I seem to recall from one of our past conversations, you mentioned a "risk-
benefit" analysis in this area and I responded that, as an attorney, I
am not allowed to use that analysis to advocate lying. This may be an
example of where you and I part ways that way again.
Farhan is quite correct that I am "pissed off" that he got away with his
lie. I have given thought to why I'm "pissed off." He considers my
position against lying and use of the legal authority to bolster a lie
to be "wrong" and a "crappy attitude."
In thinking about it, I realize what really annoys me: I've seen
Farhan's attitude many times before, but from GOVERNMENT officials. I
often fight cases where an official has set forth the outcome, and if
the law is against them, then lie to shape the official "facts" to
support the outcome.
Perhaps I am idealistic, but I abhor such actions. I consider it
corrupt whether engaged in by Government officials or by the Farhan's of
this world. It is this type of action which has corrupted the
immigration process no end.
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by DustyTraveller
> My fiancee and I also had the religious ceremony in India at the
> request of his parents, even though we applied for the K-1. Are we
> lying to the BCIS? Our reason for going ahead with a religious
> ceremony was for cultural/religious reasons, mostly because his
> parents insisted on it before we could travel to the consulate
> together, etc. and because they are fairly well known and they feared
> it would be a stain on our/their reputation if we 'went around'
> together without being engaged/married at least in the eyes of their
> family and friends. So we had a ceremony, but we didn't register or
> sign a marriage certificate.
>
> Were we wrong to do this, if we applied for a fiancee visa, rather
> than the spouse visa? We've certainly MET in the last two years, since
> I spend a great deal of time in India, but is the problem with not
> having met the fiancee, or already having held some type of public
> ceremony? Just curious...
Hi:
The law requires that you have MET before filing the petition. You met
so there was no problem in approving the I-129F. This can be in a
highly chaperoned situation as long as there is an actual meeting. In
fact, the chaperoned meeting can be good -- it produces witnesses!
Farhan had NOT met his fiance before filing the petition and argued that
his culture did not allow him to meet his wife before hand. One of the
case that Farhan admits to citing was from a diffrent country where in
arranged marriages they don't meet at all before hand.
There IS a potential problem in the religous ceremony -- which is of
a different nature. In addition to the meeting requirement, the I-
129F and K-1 visa is premised that you will marry in the US within 90
days of entry and are free to enter into such marriage -- e.g. you
are not already married. Sometimes, the religous ceremony
consistutes a LEGAL marriage -- if you get married BEFORE entry, then
the K-1 is no longer valid.
I don't know the facts of your case and the law of where you had that
ceremony. But I've had cases where it was also necessary to remain
legally NOT married and people did church weddings in California without
getting a marriage license -- so they were "married in the eye of God"
but not the State of California. US money may have "In God We Trust" on
it, but not for marriage in that case.
Good luck.
DustyTraveller
My fiancee and I also had the religious ceremony in India at the request
of his parents, even though we applied for the K-1. Are we lying to the
BCIS? Our reason for going ahead with a religious ceremony was for
cultural/religious reasons, mostly because his parents insisted on it
before we could travel to the consulate together, etc. and because they
are fairly well known and they feared it would be a stain on our/their
reputation if we 'went around' together without being engaged/married at
least in the eyes of their family and friends. So we had a ceremony, but
we didn't register or sign a marriage certificate.
Were we wrong to do this, if we applied for a fiancee visa, rather than
the spouse visa? We've certainly MET in the last two years, since I
spend a great deal of time in India, but is the problem with not having
met the fiancee, or already having held some type of public ceremony?
Just curious...
Noorah101
Originally posted by DustyTraveller
>
No, you guys are just fine. Farhan did *not* go meet his intended as
you did. That was his original plan, but then decided to ask that under
his special conditions that the requirement of having met be waived, and
the consulate complied with his request.
farhan
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
> Paul:
>
> You are quite correct that the law provides for exceptions and that
> Farhan argued his case to the proper authorities. But he freely
> admits that he researched the law, figured out what would work and
> then tailored a LIE to comport with the law. I have not detected one
> iota of remorse from Farhan for his admitted deception.
>
> In my experience, I have found lies by the applicants to be "hand
> grenades" in a case which can explode years later -- often at a
> naturalization application. Let me give you a case example:
>
> I am currently engaged in a Court of Appeals case where my client's
> U.S. Citizen husband lied in HIS immigration to the US over 20 years
> ago. He has now been in the US military for 18 years and has achieved
> high enlisted rank and is now a combat veteran of TWO wars. Well, he
> may have very well gotten away with it, but DHS is going after HER.
> This is a valid marriage with many children. The US citizen has
> honorably served the US and has put his life on the line for all of us
> -- but his lie from long ago is hurting his wife.
>
> I seem to recall from one of our past conversations, you mentioned a
> "risk-benefit" analysis in this area and I responded that, as an
> attorney, I am not allowed to use that analysis to advocate lying.
> This may be an example of where you and I part ways that way again.
>
> Farhan is quite correct that I am "pissed off" that he got away with
> his lie. I have given thought to why I'm "pissed off." He considers
> my position against lying and use of the legal authority to bolster a
> lie to be "wrong" and a "crappy attitude."
>
> In thinking about it, I realize what really annoys me: I've seen
> Farhan's attitude many times before, but from GOVERNMENT officials. I
> often fight cases where an official has set forth the outcome, and if
> the law is against them, then lie to shape the official "facts" to
> support the outcome.
>
> Perhaps I am idealistic, but I abhor such actions. I consider it
> corrupt whether engaged in by Government officials or by the Farhan's
> of this world. It is this type of action which has corrupted the
> immigration process no end.
WOW - i thought we belived on "person is inocent until proven guilty".
You don't have any proof that I lied to BCIS, you are reading between
the lines and coming up with your own judgement. In the past i gave you
the oppurtunity to read the response to RFE i sent to BCIS but no
replies. Also, Immigration lawyer (you suggested that too) read my
reply to the RFE and didn't see any issue with it. So as far as i am
concern, i did everything to make sure i am following the law.
Here are some of the links i used for RFE (and i am sure you gave me
these links):
1. "Country Study on Pakistan”– Topic: “Traditional Kinship Patterns”
(http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/pktoc.html#pk0050
2. ]http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/admindec3/d6/2003/JAN0803_02-
D6101.pdf[/url]
There is nothing wrong with the world, there are people like you who
thinks everybody is corrupt and come to get them. Case was reviewed by
experts (Not You) who have seen cases like mine in the past and either
rejected/aproved them on the basis of proof and explaination given to
them. Everybody has right to defend their case and fight, i did just
that and without anybody's help. You think i am stupid by even thinking
about lieing to BCIS? I am not a lawyer but i do know what is right and
wrong for me and my family..
At first you said:
1. Case will never get approved here in US, you were proved wrong
2. Then you said it won't get approved in Pakistan, you were
proved wrong
Why don't you feel happy that now you have a case to refer to where
applicant got approved and received visa without meeting his Fiance (and
NO it was not based on lies so get over it)
Unless you have any other argument to prove me otherwise, you don't have
any right to call me a liar -
Ciao..
P.S. I still won the case and proved you wrong :)
farhan
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
> Farhan had NOT met his fiance before filing the petition and argued
> that his culture did not allow him to meet his wife before hand. One
> of the case that Farhan admits to citing was from a diffrent country
> where in arranged marriages they don't meet at all before hand.
> Good luck.
ahem - Case was for afghanistan applicant and they have same tradition
as mine (I was born in Pakistan, my parents are from Afghanistan, and
in the post I did tell that to Folinskyinla but he choose to forget
that hehehe).. I live 20 miles from afghanistan, I speak same language,
and have same traditions. Again Folinskyinla is reading between the
lines and coming up with his judgement. may be thats whats wrong with
him? hmm :)
Link to the case:
]http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/admindec3/d6/2003/JAN0803_02D61-
01.pdf[/url]
Paul Gani
> You are quite correct that the law provides for exceptions and that
> Farhan argued his case to the proper authorities. But he freely admits
> that he researched the law, figured out what would work and then
> tailored a LIE to comport with the law. I have not detected one iota
> of remorse from Farhan for his admitted deception.
>
> In my experience, I have found lies by the applicants to be "hand
> grenades" in a case which can explode years later -- often at a
> naturalization application. Let me give you a case example:
OK, I see from some other posts the details of his case.
Yes, I can certainly see how his intended visit to Pakistan after his K-1
has been approved could cause trouble in the future.
I think he should just stay put in the U.S. and go along with his declared
intention of meeting her at their marriage ceremony in the U.S. I actually
attended an Indian wedding in the U.S. where the bride and groom never saw
each other (except via. pictures) until after the marriage ceremony was
over. In the ceremony, a veil hanging between them prevented them from
seeing each other until after they were married. Funny thing is, no one
really objected to them meeting prior to marriage. But when they chose to
have a traditional wedding, they decided to go all the way.
Paulgani
ScottHenshaw
Farhan,
In reading your posts to this forum, it has always been clear to me that
you and this woman are truly in love, now it seems that you are coming
closer to being together. That should be all that matters and the voices
of people congradulating you should be far louder than those trying to
piss you off. The fact that your religeous and courting beliefs are
differnt from theirs and that you took a differnt approach should and
probably does not matter. With that said, "Congradulations"....
Scott
--
NOA1 NSC December 16th, 2002
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Leslie66
I tend to believe that there would have been no cultural reason keeping
them from meeting. The strictest interpretation of the Muslim religion
would have forbidden any un-chaperoned meetings. But if they were
really that strict, they probably would have also forbidden the web-cam.
The interesting point to me is, this does appear to be a legitimately
arranged marriage. This is an agreement between two families for
religious, cultural, and financial reasons. It was arranged before they
met, and it will happen regardless of whether they meet first or not. I
think on that is the basis the rule of having met should be waived.
I'm curious Farhan, why did you not want to get married in Pakistan and
file the K3?
Leslie
Originally posted by Mrtravel
> Paul Gani wrote:
> >
> >
>
>
> 1. Prearrange bethrohal
> 2. Meeting in Pakinstan
> 3. Religious ceremony
> 4. Come to US
> 5. Get married
>
> He lied to CIS.
>
> *********************************************
********************************************8
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by Leslie66
> I tend to believe that there would have been no cultural reason
> keeping them from meeting. The strictest interpretation of the Muslim
> religion would have forbidden any un-chaperoned meetings. But if they
> were really that strict, they probably would have also forbidden the
> web-cam.
>
> The interesting point to me is, this does appear to be a
> legitimately arranged marriage. This is an agreement between two
> families for religious, cultural, and financial reasons. It was
> arranged before they met, and it will happen regardless of whether
> they meet first or not. I think on that is the basis the rule of
> having met should be waived.
>
> I'm curious Farhan, why did you not want to get married in Pakistan
> and file the K3?
>
> Leslie
Hi Leslie:
There is no problem with arranged marriages. They are perfectly legal.
In fact, it is legal to have an arranged marriage if the primary motive
is to allow the alien spouse to come to the United States and be the
"seed" relative -- PROVIDED there is an intent to establish a married
life together.
An interesting quirk -- during the dot-com-boom, it was common for
companies to have Indian engineers on both H-1 and green card status.
The families at home would arrange marriages only to find out that the
H-1's could get H-4's for the new spouse bu the green card holders faced
a long wait due to numerical restrictions. There was a widely held
practice of green card holders giving up their green cards to get new
H-1's and the new spouse an H-4 with the idea of re-immigrating. This
has, of course, fallen by the wayside with the dot-com-bust and delays
in visa processing.
farhan
Originally posted by ScottHenshaw
> Farhan,
>
> In reading your posts to this forum, it has always been clear to me
> that you and this woman are truly in love, now it seems that you are
> coming closer to being together. That should be all that matters and
> the voices of people congradulating you should be far louder than
> those trying to piss you off. The fact that your religeous and
> courting beliefs are differnt from theirs and that you took a differnt
> approach should and probably does not matter. With that said,
> "Congradulations"....
>
>
> Scott
Scott thanks for kind words :) - I am not pissed but i wanted to reply
to these message because i feel that i am helping others who will have
same issue some day.
Good luck with your wedding.. our date is set too Jan 10th :)
farhan
Originally posted by Leslie66
>
> I'm curious Farhan, why did you not want to get married in Pakistan
> and file the K3?
>
> Leslie
Because I was planning to go to Pakistan in November 2003 and wanted to
bring my fiance along with me.. where if i had married her in November,
it would have taken additional 10+ months for her to get k3 visa. K1
sounded easier and i felt we can always get married in US and have a
gathering in Pakistan in 2004 with family members.
It was just a decision we made to be together sooner instead of waiting
10 more months apart :)
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by farhan
> i feel that i am helping others who will have same issue some day.
>
Hi:
I, too answer on this board in the spirit of helping people who may have
similar problems in the future.
The regulations at 8 CFR 214.2(k)(2) provide in part:
"...that compliance would violate strict and long-established customs of
the K-1 beneficiary's foreign culture or social practice, as where
marriages are traditionally arranged by the parents of the contracting
parties and the prospective bride and groom are prohibited from meeting
subsequent to the arrangement and prior to the wedding day. In addition
to establishing that the required meeting would be a violation of custom
or practice, the petitioner must also establish that any and all other
aspects of the traditional arrangements have been or will be met in
accordance with the custom or practice. Failure to establish that the
petitioner and K-1 beneficiary have met within the required period or
that compliance with the requirement should be waived shall result in
the denial of the petition."
Therefore, in order to waive the 2 year meeting requirement on the basis
of religion or custom, there are two requirements: establish the
existence of the custom AND that the custom will be complied with.
It may very well be that under the relevant Pakastani customs, Farhan
and his fiance were prohibited from meeting prior to the wedding. So,
lets assume that is true.
However, Farhan has from the beginning admitted that he and his fiance's
family had no intention of complying with that custom. Hence, a waiver
was inappropriate.
In reviewing the strings Farhan has posted in the past, his defense
that he may not have "lied" is well taken. He may have avoided an
actual lie.
The Supreme Court 30 years ago reversed a perjury conviction where a
person made a truthful answer which was assumed to have been meant to be
deceitful and misleading. Bronston v United States, 409 US 352 (1973).
I have not seen Farhan's actual paperwork. So I will assume he did not
lie. However, based upon his own repeated statements on this NG, he did
engage in conduct which was either decietful or designed to give the
impression that he and his fiance's family intended to comply with the
custom of non-meeting.
In a non-legal context, I once read in a novel a character saying that
the most effective way to lie is to tell the truth, but not all of it.
However, IMHO, this is a hard skill to handle.
Farhan may very well have gotten away with obtaining a benefit for which
his fiance was not entitled by the selective truth-telling.
But, in my opinion, that is dangerous conduct and can have quite adverse
consequences.
Good luck and happiness to all of you.
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by farhan
> still trying to prove that you were right eh?
>
> I am very disappointed by your lack of judgement and attacking my
> character. I have seen your replies to otthers, you are very rude
> and think you are above everybody. If you are here to help, then be
> humble and show some compassion. Most of us are here because we need
> help to bring our love ones to US and don't apperciate your rude and
> worthless comments. You keep replying to this thread proves how
> shallow and unprofessional you are, i sure hope you learn from this
> and change your attitude.
>
> Just word of advice (from somebody much younger then you): God gave
> you gift of knowledge, be humble about it and treat people like you
> want to be treated.
>
> I won't reply to this thread anymore, its not serving any purpose
> anymore.. So knock yourself out ;)
>
> Ciao and Good luck
Hi:
I gave careful thought to what you had said and said your objection to
saying you lied was "well taken" and I withdrew that charge against you.
I was WRONG in say you "lied" inasmuch as I had not seen what you
actually submitted to the government.
I've been at this long time and I've long ago learned the need for
humility -- to err is human.
At this point, I will just say that you and I disagree on what is good
character. You described with great particularity what you had done. I
still disapprove of it.
In all likelihood, your soon-to-be wife will not be hurt by your
actions. For her sake, I wish both of you the best of luck, prosperity
and happiness.
farhan
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
> Hi:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
still trying to prove that you were right eh?
I am very disappointed by your lack of judgement and attacking my
character. I have seen your replies to otthers, you are very rude
and think you are above everybody. If you are here to help, then be
humble and show some compassion. Most of us are here because we need
help to bring our love ones to US and don't apperciate your rude and
worthless comments. You keep replying to this thread proves how
shallow and unprofessional you are, i sure hope you learn from this
and change your attitude.
Just word of advice (from somebody much younger then you): God gave you
gift of knowledge, be humble about it and treat people like you want to
be treated.
I won't reply to this thread anymore, its not serving any purpose
anymore.. So knock yourself out ;)
Ciao and Good luck
farhan
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
> Hi:
>
> I gave careful thought to what you had said and said your objection
> to saying you lied was "well taken" and I withdrew that charge
> against you.
>
> I was WRONG in say you "lied" inasmuch as I had not seen what you
> actually submitted to the government.
>
> I've been at this long time and I've long ago learned the need for
> humility -- to err is human.
>
> At this point, I will just say that you and I disagree on what is good
> character. You described with great particularity what you had done.
> I still disapprove of it.
>
> In all likelihood, your soon-to-be wife will not be hurt by your
> actions. For her sake, I wish both of you the best of luck,
> prosperity and happiness.
Thank you :) - see it wasn't that hard.
Good luck.
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by farhan
> Thank you :) - see it wasn't that hard.
>
> Good luck.
Hi:
I beg to disagree that its not "that hard." It is hard. I sometimes
wonder if its supposed to be hard. But I think its a good habit to get
into. I recommend it highly.
My beliefs in this matter come from MY religous background. If you are
curious, you may want to examine the Yom Kippur liturgy. It might be
best to conduct this review at the end of the daily fast during Ramadan
to get the best "flavor" of the liturgy and its effect on the soul.
[Yom Kippur may be only one day, but it is for 24 hours, not just
daylight].
Other points that form the core of my beliefs: the Hebrew word for
"justice" derives from "holy" or "holiness"
"Justice, justice, seek it!" Deuteronomy 16:20.
"Don't put a stumbling block in front of a blind man" Leviticus 19:14
"The Lord says what is good and what he requires: only to do Justice,
love Goodness, and to walk humbly with God." Micah 6:8
Eid Mubarak my friend.
Hebapotamus42
I haven't been following this thread, but obviously the BCIS doesn't
know anything about the Islamic requirements for marriage or Farhan's
petition would have been denied. Islam REQUIRES that the two people see
each other. And in no way is there a prohibition on the two of them
meeting, so long as they are not completely alone (which I am sure can
be arranged). If this is a cultural thing, then that's different. But
you're lucky to have gotten the approval based on "religious"
restrictions to meeting.
Leslie66
Yes. You are correct. I truthfully don't know of any religion that
*prohibits* the two from meeting. I remember perhaps reading of some
ancient Asian traditions where the bride and groom did not see each
other until the day of marriage. I'm fuzzy on where I read that, and I
doubt it is enforced any longer.
Leslie
P.S. Heba, still banging your head against a brick wall?? :(
Originally posted by Hebapotamus42
paulgani
customs we hear of in the western world which we attribute to Islam are
actually not Islamic rules at all, but instead customs that have been
practiced by local inhabitants long before Muhammed was even born.
Paulgani
"Hebapotamus42" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:1057501.1...@britishexpats.com...
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by Hebapotamus42
Hi:
I suggest you do read this thread and earlier threads intiated by
Farhan. Don't limit yourself to "religion" -- religion is often
intertwined with culture. In his research, Farhan found two
"unpuplished" AAO cases on the government web sites -- one from Pakistan
said they could meet and one from Afghanistan said they couldn't.
However, I have found that under the Bush administration has been quite
anti-religion when it comes to immigration matters. In my experience ,
this has been particularly true of what is known as "Protestant
Christianity."
Under Mr. Ashcroft, the former INS came to the position that religous
music was NOT part of the religous tradition of Protestant Christianity
and was merely secular in nature. CIS has carried on this finding.
Leslie66
As far as Farhan's original assertion that Islam forbade the meeting of
the two. He may have actually thought that was true until he further
researched the matter. Just like some Christains think that drinking
alcohol is a mortal sin, and other Christains drink in church. LOL.
On the comment you made about the Bush administration. That's not the
first time I've heard that, but I don't really know what it means. Are
you saying that using religious reasons in immigration petitions is less
helpful now than it used to be?
Leslie
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
> Hi:
>
> I suggest you do read this thread and earlier threads intiated by
> Farhan. Don't limit yourself to "religion" -- religion is often
> intertwined with culture. In his research, Farhan found two
> "unpuplished" AAO cases on the government web sites -- one from
> Pakistan said they could meet and one from Afghanistan said they
> couldn't.
>
> However, I have found that under the Bush administration has been
> quite anti-religion when it comes to immigration matters. In my
> experience , this has been particularly true of what is known as
> "Protestant Christianity."
>
Under Mr. Ashcroft, the former INS came to the position that religous
music was NOT part of the religous tradition of Protestant
Christianity and was merely secular in nature. CIS has carried on
this finding.
--
Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Hebapotamus42
Having done a search and read more about this case, it seems it has less
to do with religion or culture than it does to do with convenience. The
petition was filed prematurely and it looks like the prohibition on
meeting argument was used to avoid filing over again. Farhan was lucky
he got the approval but I wouldn't feel too smug about it as it's not
fair to others who go out of their way to produce the proof required.
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by Leslie66
> As far as Farhan's original assertion that Islam forbade the meeting
> of the two. He may have actually thought that was true until he
> further researched the matter. Just like some Christains think that
> drinking alcohol is a mortal sin, and other Christains drink in
> church. LOL.
>
> On the comment you made about the Bush administration. That's not the
> first time I've heard that, but I don't really know what it means.
> Are you saying that using religious reasons in immigration petitions
> is less helpful now than it used to be?
>
> Leslie
Hi:
On the employment based side of immigration, the immigration laws have
always allowed for ministers of religion to enter to engage in their
vocation. Prior to 1991, there was a regulatory exemption from the
individual labor certificate requirement. In the 1990 legislation,
Congress expanded the religous worker category from ministers to
traditional religous occupations. They have been doing this at 3 year
intervals and just extended it for EIGHT years. Bush signed it with
no problem.
However, the Service Centers and the AAO now consistently break the
regulations under the guise of "interpreting" the regulations. When
they get sued on this [and most churches don't like suing], they lose
and lose badly.
If the Church of Latter Day Saints ever changes its policy against
filing religous worker petitions, I would like to see what happens.
Pallyn
Originally posted by Hebapotamus42
I agree with you that he was lucky to get the approval UNLESS he really
didn't meet her. The original posts talked about plans to meet her. I
can't tell from subsequent posts whether he went to meet her or not. If
he truly didn't meet her, then he didn't abuse the exception as badly.
The omission speaks as loudly as the admission, though.
farhan
For record: After researching little bit more and talking to Islamic
center i found out that Islam wants us to meet before marriage. I
never met my Fiance and was due to cultural issue - and thats what i
argued in the response to RFE (I can email the response of RFE to
somebody who is interested). I know i am very lucky and blessed that we
got approved :) - To be honest, intially i had 0% faith but I had to try
it because i didn't want to leave my Fiance for another 6-8 months in
Pakistan alone if went with K3 visa.
Now here is a freaky thing though - My fiance told me on same day there
were 3 other girls interviewing for k1 visa who were actually married
(and admitted it to her before the interview). All 3 got approved the
same day and point blank lied to US Consulate about it.
Ciao.
Leslie66
That is CRAZY. Who were they married to? The U.S. petitioner or
somebody in Pakistan?!?!?
Leslie
Originally posted by farhan
farhan
Originally posted by Leslie66
> That is CRAZY. Who were they married to? The U.S. petitioner or
> somebody in Pakistan?!?!?
>
> Leslie
U.S. petitioner
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by farhan
>
> Now here is a freaky thing though - My fiance told me on same day
> there were 3 other girls interviewing for k1 visa who were actually
> married (and admitted it to her before the interview). All 3 got
> approved the same day and point blank lied to US Consulate about it.
>
> Ciao.
The devil in me wants to say that they are contributing to a future
inventory of business for immigration lawyers.
I'm always amazed that when people "point blank lie" they tell other
people about. Morality aside, it is a dumb move to tell other people --
thats how the government finds out about things.
As a related aside, there is an old published BIA case on the "entry"
doctrine, where a woman had been admitted to the US at the bridge
between Juarez, Chih. and El Paso, Texas. A man in line behind her
then told the immigration official that they had just admitted the
hooker that had been with a few nights before [not quite expressed that
way in the written decision, but that is my understanding of the
facts]. She was apprehended before she was able to reach the other end
of the bridge.
Just to show you that adverse information comes from weird places.
Folinskyinla
Originally posted by farhan
> I know i was amazed that they actually told my fiance about it.. Now
> here is a thing though, may be they were married on the phone? - In
> pakistan, marriages are valid if done over the phone.. So my guess is
> that they got engaged while fiance was visiting, got married on the
> phone and now she is coming to US to live happily ever after.
>
> But it still is very dangerous telling that kind of lie to person you
> don't even know.
Section 101(a)(35) of the Immigration & Nationality Act DOES allow for
marriages where the couple is not in the physical presence of each
other, but not until they have "consumated" the marriage. I once had a
case, long fact pattern, where we had a DOUBLE proxy marriage where
neither was present -- and despite having had a child afterwards, the
consul asked for a declaration of consumation. The clients balked a
little out of embarassment -- they finally consented to "Our child was
concieved by us in an act of sexual intercourse after we were married."
farhan
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
> The devil in me wants to say that they are contributing to a future
> inventory of business for immigration lawyers.
>
> I'm always amazed that when people "point blank lie" they tell other
> people about. Morality aside, it is a dumb move to tell other people
> -- thats how the government finds out about things.
>
> As a related aside, there is an old published BIA case on the "entry"
> doctrine, where a woman had been admitted to the US at the bridge
> between Juarez, Chih. and El Paso, Texas. A man in line behind her
> then told the immigration official that they had just admitted the
> hooker that had been with a few nights before [not quite expressed
> that way in the written decision, but that is my understanding of the
> facts]. She was apprehended before she was able to reach the other
> end of the bridge.
>
> Just to show you that adverse information comes from weird places.
>
I know i was amazed that they actually told my fiance about it.. Now
here is a thing though, may be they were married on the phone? - In
pakistan, marriages are valid if done over the phone.. So my guess is
that they got engaged while fiance was visiting, got married on the
phone and now she is coming to US to live happily ever after.
But it still is very dangerous telling that kind of lie to person you
don't even know.