Folinskyinla

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

farhan wrote:

    >
    > 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

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

"Folinskyinla" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > 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?
    > 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.
    > --
    > Certified Specialist
    > Immigration &amp; Nat. Law
    > Cal. Bar Board of Legal Specialization
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

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

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

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.

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.

Folinskyinla

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.

farhan

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/a...03_02D6101.pdf

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

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/a...03_02D6101.pdf

Paul Gani

"Folinskyinla" <member@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > 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

Leslie

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

Folinskyinla

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

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