farhan

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

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.

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

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.

farhan

Thank you - see it wasn't that hard.

Good luck.

Folinskyinla

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.

Leslie

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??

Paulgani

Islamic law and cultural traditions are two different things. Many of the
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:[email protected]...
    > 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.
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

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.

Leslie

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

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.

Pallyn

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.

Folinskyinla

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.

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.