jeffreyhy

Maybe. Or perhaps they're going to get really pissed about having to go through an unnecessarily large submission. I haven't seen it discussed in a while, but one of the items mentioned in the 'minimal-maximus' debate over how much paper to include with a petition used to be that the case officer had to read everything submitted, with several possible consequences two of which were:
1. the thick applications went to the bottom of the pile until they couldn't be put off any longer so that the case officer could keep his piece-work number up, or
2. the more paper sent the greater the odds that there was something in there better left unsaid, such as lovey-dovey people thinking ahead and using the terms 'husband' and 'wife' prematurely, leading to an RFE for further evidence that the pair were not married. This one was not speculation - it did occur on occasion.

Regards, JEff

Noorah101

Yes.

If they think it's only for the immigration benefit.

Rene

Noorah101

They might have, but USCIS doesn't accept any proof that is not on paper. No digital media, videos, DVDs, CDs, cassette tapes, 8-tracks, or vinyl (for those of you my age or older. LOL)

Rene

jeffreyhy

They don't have to know. By law, it's a given that the relationship is to obtain an immigration benefit unless the visa applicant can convince the immigration officer otherwise.
Sigh.

slummymummy

Ok, so the visa applicant convinces them that it is for another reason, which can be love.

But it doesn't have to be love.

<3

slummymummy

Quick, close the thread, let me get the last word for once!

jeffreyhy

Yes.

Regards, JEff

jeffreyhy

Too late this time, but I promise you I won't post in this thread again.

Regards, JEff

Noorah101

slummymummy,

Here's a scenario for you to ponder:

A young woman from a third world country where they frown on divorce, is divorced, and can't find a suitable husband in her community now. She's from a poor family. In her culture, she's not able to work and earn a living for herself, so she lives at home. It's a strain and drain on the family resources. Let's say she happens to meet a male USC on the internet, and they strike up a conversation. He is widowed and alone, older, with no kids or family to take care of him as he grows older. He doesn't mind that she's divorced, because in his culture, that's OK. He doesn't mind that she's poor, because he has enough money to take care of her. He finds he likes the family values of that third world country, and finds this woman appealing. He goes to visit her and the family, they all sit down and talk together, and everyone agrees on the marriage. It's not for love, because they really hardly know each other. It can be for companionship, since neither of them have successfully been able to find another mate. It can be for money, because he's wealthy enough to take care of her AND her family back home. It can be for ambition, because he is in support of her going to school and working. It can be for developing a family, because they both want children. It can be for a sense of well-being, because the woman knows she won't be a drain on her family back home anymore, she won't have the stigma of divorce on her name in the USA, and they will both have a life partner to share and care for. None of that has to do with love (at least not at this moment...love can develop later).

I know that's not YOUR scenario, but that is indeed many others' scenarios.

As you can see, it doesn't have to be about love at all.

Rene

slummymummy

Phew...

Anyway, I have learned a lot from this thread. This last discussion was a bit off topic from the original question but still interesting.

Noorah101

Exactly! <--- last word. LOL

Rene

slummymummy

Yes Rene that was a nice story and it sounds plausible!

I didn't say it has to be for love, I just said that love can be one of a number of possible reasons used to convince the officer that it's not just for immigration benefits.

IF your reason is just love, then you need to portray that otherwise they might think it's only for immigration benefits.

If it's not for love then you need to portray that reason. Or those reasons.

That's what I mean.

slummymummy

Ok so we all agree! Brilliant.

I don't even care if I get the last word anymore...........

pinkdrumsandglitter

lol!!!! thread is an interesting one!

Dorothy

My husband and I married 20 years ago because I got pregnant and I didn't want to be a single mother and because he wanted to be part of his child's life. "Love" really wasn't a part of our relationship when my daughter was conceived or when she was born. At the time of her conception it was purely hormones and lust - I was a 31 year old divorced woman and he was a 25 year old hot young thing.

Over the years we have grown to love each other, but I'm sure not in the way some of the posters on this thread define love. There have never been fireworks or the feeling that I'll just die if I don't get to see him or talk to him every day. We care deeply for each other and have a mutual respect but other than our children we really have very little in common, leading mostly separate lives. However, we do have a bonafide marriage, one that I think will likely last another 20 years or more.

Love, especially the Disney Fairy Tale type of love really have nothing to do with whether a marriage is bonafide or is going to work. My first husband and I were soooooo in love. Then we got married and realised that there is a whole lot more to marriage than love or sex or lust.