Even though there is a provision for it, I don't believe USCIS is obligated to accept "cultural practice" as a reason for not meeting prior to submitting the application form. It's well known that that USCIS often ignores its own guidelines! Never forget that USCIS' mandate is to keep aliens out of the US.

Ian

Rangena,

If worse comes to worst, they can always marry first and then apply for a spousal visa.

Regards, JEff

Hi:

Keep your eye on the prize -- which is getting the petition approved. I've made no insinuations at all about what you are doing -- what I AM doing is giving you the POV which CIS is operating from.

Yes, it is cultural practice, I did not say otherwise. However, this cultural practice is an EXCEPTION to the general rule and you are required to prove it.

You said yourself that you got an RFE on YOUR application. This means that, to the Officer examining your case, you application was NOT sufficient. And if you tell her that "But my relatives submitted three identical applications previously and they were all approved!", the respone will be "We previously made three mistakes and we are not going to do it a fourth time."

BTW, there was a string some years back on Pakastani custom posted by "Farhan." He kept describing what he was submitting to show that he and his beloved could not meet before the WEDDING. His STATED goal was to have the petition and visa approved before he flew to Pakistan for the ENGAGEMENT ceremony so they could return to the United States together. I recall that he took great offense to my suggestion that his stated intentions were not consistent. He took great pleasure in insisting that I was wrong because it "worked" every step of the way.

But again -- bottom line -- get the petition approved.

Just a dumb question from one who is ignorrant of your ways and customs:

What on earth do you do if, having married- you find out that the person who you married is not someone that you can spend the rest of your life with?

I'm interested to read the response.
My assumption would be that that is simply not an option. Suck it up, sailor. etc etc

And I imagine it would mainly be the woman who would be doing the ......... ehem!

Hi:

Arranged marriages are a quite common custom. Also, marriage is an important decision -- one which one may consider to be too important to be left to young people whose judgements are often clouded by raging hormones. Also, remember that quite often marriage is NOT for the joy of the married couple, but for the care of children and the couple's parents.

I was just discussing with one of my suitemates this morning that issues of marriage and sexuality are quite varied and complicated -- and the problems that can cause with DHS and Consular Officers.

BTW, although the law is actually quite comfortable with arranged marriages, it is NOT comfortable with plural marriages. No matter how polyandry may comply with local culture and law, the United States will NOT recognize plural marriages other than the first in time. [Interesting issue -- and I do NOT know the answer off the top of my head -- lets say a man has two wives where accepted and legal and first wife then dies. Will the US recognize the marriage to wife #2 for immigration purposes? And don't think this can't come up -- say wife #1 gives birth to a child who later immigrates into the US and naturalizes -- would wife #2 be the "step-mother" of wife #1's offspring].

How about a statement from your father or other family members verifying that this is your not just a cultural practice, but specifically your family's practice, noting the other recent marriages. Perhaps mention how your family knows of him and that your family approves of your proposed marriage.

Good luck!

Marnee

Hey Marnee:

At first blush, I don't think this is a good idea.

I don't know what I'm missing -- but WHY do people keep thinking telling CIS that "you did this before, therefore do it again" is a good idea. Its not. I don't know why the OP conisders this to be an "insinuation" when it is not. Its just that the argument is fallacious and CIS considers it fallacious. Nonetheless, it seems to be considered by lay people to be a good argument. [BTW, I sometimes have this argument with my clients -- unless a prior case is "published" as a "precedent" decision, it is NOT binding. Period, end of argument].

I was just thinking that it might add some ligitimacy to her claim that it really is the way that they do things and she isnt just trying to get out of the expense of a trip to Pakistan. But of course i defer to your experience and knowledge in such matters.

Marnee

Thanks Marnee, I think we will have his parents write up something like that over there also...

It seems like they passed the other three cases and this one just got pulled for further questioning and since we don't have anything to hide, I am confident that we can fulfill the requirements!

Rangena:

Few things that worked in our case:

1. I had Embassy of Pakistan send me letter stating our which doesn't allow man & woman to meet before marriage. In my case, I called the embassy in NY,.. within couple of days they faxed and mailed me hardcopy stating that we cant meet before marriage because phuston culture doesn't allow it.

2. There is some wording in Library of Congress Archieves explaining Pakistani Culture(kinship etc.) how man & woman can't meet, explaination of purdha etc.. Folinskyinla will know the link as he is the one who gave me the link

Hope this helps.

Farhan