Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA
Reload this Page >

Just to clear things up.....

Just to clear things up.....

Old Oct 12th 2002, 3:20 am
  #1  
Just Joined
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 16
F.B.J is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Just to clear things up.....

My first post seemed to cause a lot of confusion so I am re-posting in hopes that I've made it more clear.

Early July 2001: A woman visited her friends in my city in Canada. We did NOT meet.

Late July 2001: The woman went back to her home in the US. I "met" that woman in a chat room.

Nov. 2001: Things progressed between us and I went to the US to meet her in person for the first time.

Sept. 2002: After meeting many times, we got engaged and she filed an I-129F.

We lied on the form, saying that we first met when she visited her friends in July 2001. We didn't meet, didn't even know eachother existed at that time. A week after she came home from her visit, we "met" in a chat room. We didn't know how common internet relationships were and we were scared that the I-129F application would be refused based on us meeting on the internet (we didn't even understand how we fell in love over the internet and certainly didn't expect INS to). We did meet in person on several occasions before she filed the I-129F but lied on the application about how we first "met."

I expect the question of how we first met to come up again at my Consulate interview. Now what I am wondering is:

If I come clean at the interview and tell them that we actually met on the internet and not on her visit, will I be denied (and possibly fined and/or imprisonned) because of the lie, or will it be overlooked because I came clean and told the truth?

It would probably be easy enough to keep the story going, but one little screw up could mean them CATCHING me in the lie and is probably the worst thing that could ever happen.

Hope this clears things up.
F.B.J is offline  
Old Oct 12th 2002, 5:19 am
  #2  
Lt Col (Retd)
 
Pulaski's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Dixie, ex UK
Posts: 47,715
Pulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond reputePulaski has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

The more complex you make things the worse they will become.

Neither coming clean nor continuing the lie are ideal, but sticking with the existing story is simpler, so do that.

In practice the INS is not likely to give you the third degree. However in case they do I suggest a simple, "we were introduced once and exchanged phone numbers/ e-mail addresses" - don't complicate things with an elaborate tale of how you did this, that and the other.
Pulaski is online now  
Old Oct 12th 2002, 5:33 am
  #3  
Bob Autrey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out to you, and it may be a
moot point considering your situation (your questions). But... the question
on the 129F is asking about the circumstances of your physical meeting. Not
about how you came to know the person.

I bring this up because I interpreted the question wrong for several weeks
as I began organizing my mind and documents for filing my 129F.

The issue covered by the question is: Have you met your fiancé in person,
and where and when?

The fact that you met on the internet is completely irrelevant. As would be
any other form of coming to know of a persons existence.

Someone my correct me here, but I do not think the immigration law even
address how people come to know each other. It only addresses the issue of
having actually met each other in person in the past two years. That's what
they want to know about, and that's what you have to document.

As to any advice about continuing the "lie", or coming clean - I guess I
can't advise you? I must say, however, it irks me that we all have to worry
so much about issues like this. It's such nonsense. I guess it's typical of
bureaucracy though? Form over function. I can't imagine how this having to
have met the person in the past two years serves any useful purpose for out
government, or our society? Our societies tradition is the presumption of
innocence. In this arena that should, in my mind, translate into a
presumption that the relationship is a valid one (solely on the word of the
citizen). You would think that our government would be clever enough to find
more reliable ways to capture immigration fraud?

Bob

    > My first post seemed to cause a lot of confusion so I am re-posting in
    > hopes that I've made it more clear.
    > Early July 2001: A woman visited her friends in my city in Canada. We
    > did NOT meet.
    > Late July 2001: The woman went back to her home in the US. I "met" that
    > woman in a chat room.
    > Nov. 2001: Things progressed between us and I went to the US to meet her
    > in person for the first time.
    > Sept. 2002: After meeting many times, we got engaged and she filed
    > an I-129F.
    > We lied on the form, saying that we first met when she visited her
    > friends in July 2001. We didn't meet, didn't even know eachother
    > existed at that time. A week after she came home from her visit, we
    > "met" in a chat room. We didn't know how common internet relationships
    > were and we were scared that the I-129F application would be refused
    > based on us meeting on the internet (we didn't even understand how we
    > fell in love over the internet and certainly didn't expect INS to). We
    > did meet in person on several occasions before she filed the I-129F but
    > lied on the application about how we first "met."
    > I expect the question of how we first met to come up again at my
    > Consulate interview. Now what I am wondering is:
    > If I come clean at the interview and tell them that we actually met on
    > the internet and not on her visit, will I be denied (and possibly fined
    > and/or imprisonned) because of the lie, or will it be overlooked because
    > I came clean and told the truth?
    > It would probably be easy enough to keep the story going, but one little
    > screw up could mean them CATCHING me in the lie and is probably the
    > worst thing that could ever happen.
    > Hope this clears things up.
 
Old Oct 12th 2002, 6:38 am
  #4  
Steggy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

"F.B.J" wrote:
Little scissors
    > I expect the question of how we first met to come up again at my
    > Consulate interview. Now what I am wondering is:
    > If I come clean at the interview and tell them that we actually met on
    > the internet and not on her visit, will I be denied (and possibly fined
    > and/or imprisonned) because of the lie, or will it be overlooked because
    > I came clean and told the truth?
    > It would probably be easy enough to keep the story going, but one little
    > screw up could mean them CATCHING me in the lie and is probably the
    > worst thing that could ever happen.
    > Hope this clears things up.

I believe there were answers on this one. Just stay with
that little lie. What is the problem, and how would they
find out. Besides, my experience is they do not even ask you
that type of questions in the Consulate. You might expect it
in the interview for the Greencard, but hey, at that time
you guys will be long married and living happily.

My feeling (note: that is my feeling) is you will not get
hurt by telling them the truth (forget about fines and
imprisonments, that is insane I believe), but why would you?
Just stick to your story, you don't mean harm, and you did
nothing unlawful.


--
steg
 
Old Oct 12th 2002, 6:45 am
  #5  
Steggy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

Bob Autrey wrote:
    > As to any advice about continuing the "lie", or coming clean - I guess I
    > can't advise you? I must say, however, it irks me that we all have to worry
    > so much about issues like this. It's such nonsense. I guess it's typical of
    > bureaucracy though? Form over function. I can't imagine how this having to
    > have met the person in the past two years serves any useful purpose for out
    > government, or our society? Our societies tradition is the presumption of
    > innocence. In this arena that should, in my mind, translate into a
    > presumption that the relationship is a valid one (solely on the word of the
    > citizen). You would think that our government would be clever enough to find
    > more reliable ways to capture immigration fraud?
    > Bob

They do Bob. But mainly in the Greencard interview. Then
they can establish if a couple is really married, and not
into fraud. Yes just by interviewing and seeing some proof.

You have to see the other side. Not only in America, but
everywhere in the world, they have the problem of illegal
immigrants, and fraud marriages for instance. Of course
governments want to prevent that, and I believe they are
right. Just to keep the wrong persons out of the borders. At
the same time, they need to let the honest people in. The
difference is sometimes hard to determine.

I sure hope they will not go to more sophisticated methods,
because that could easily bring Big Brother in. Which would
effect the 90% or so totally sincere people much more.
--
steg
 
Old Oct 12th 2002, 3:04 pm
  #6  
Bob Autrey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

I agree completely with this analysis! After all, the exact moment of your
meeting isn't even what they care about in the first place. Only that you
have actually met. You have complied with this requirement, and in good
faith. Besides, it is understandable that you felt nervous about revealing
what you thought to be an unconventional style of introduction, and you in
fact, corrected the situation quickly. In the course of human events the
truth that comes to be real isn't always arrived at down a linear path.

Bob

    > The more complex you make things the worse they will become.
    > Neither coming clean nor continuing the lie are ideal, but sticking with
    > the existing story is simpler, so do that.
    > In practice the INS is not likely to give you the third degree. However
    > in case they do I suggest a simple, "we were introduced once and
    > exchanged phone numbers/ e-mail addresses" - don't complicate things
    > with an elaborate tale of how you did this, that and the other.
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
 
Old Oct 12th 2002, 4:15 pm
  #7  
Morkai Kurst
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

Bob Autrey wrote:

    > I can't
    > imagine how this having to have met the person in the past two years
    > serves any useful purpose for out government, or our society?

Umm, how could anyone even conceive of marriage without having met their
potential spouse first? (I'm putting aside cultures where this is the norm
for the moment, the requirement for them is circumventable..) My partner and
I conversed 8 hours a day, every day for 6 months before I first met him and
that in no way prepared me for what living with him would be like. It took
another 3 and a half years for us to decide that marriage really was the
right thing to do. Fair enough thats because both of us had no intentions of
entering into such a thing lightly, had there been any other choice we would
not be getting married (I swore blind many years ago I'd never marry after
looking at my family tree, every single member of it for about 4 generations
has married, had kids, split up, remarried and had more kids - it's a
nightmare..) Hell we both grew up a lot in those 5 years, I'm 24 now and
he's 25. It's only in the last 2 years of our relationship that we got past
the lust and infatuation and developed a real connection, a companionship
that goes past all that. I truely believe if we had got married within those
first 3 years we would not be together now.

Anyway, rambling aside, I just cannot understand how someone can enter into
a lifelong commitment with someone they have never met. I mean apart from
all the horror stories my mother delighted me with before I met Koby, like
'What if he thinks it's the height of amusement to fart as loud as possible
in public', what if he was like one of my ex's who couldn't bear for me to
be apart from him for more than a second. I couldn't even go and chat with a
friend across the bar. If Koby had been like that I'd have said goodbye,
however wonderful a person he seemed in other areas. Discussing the issue
doesn't always help, my ex became my ex cause he could not handle the
concept that I would want to be with anyone other than him now that we were
together, he was quite frank about it. So I ended the relationship and we
went back to being friends.

It was well said by someone in a thread recently that you can't possibly
know someone until you've seen their dirty underwear.

So in all that I think it serves our government by weeding out the obvious
bad matches before it even gets as far as paperwork and it serves our
society by stopping people giving up their entire life to move over with
someone and sudddenly discovering that the person is unliveable with. Or
having the beloved one come over and suddenly realising you've made the
worst mistake in your life.

Personally I think the requirement should be greater but that is expressly
my opinion, it doesn't always fit round people's jobs etc, I can appreciate
that. I think it would save a great many more broken hearts if couple were
required to have spent a certain period of time together within those 2
years, a couple of months at least. Unfortunately that would never work and
would probably prevent a number of people who are perfect matches from ever
being together due to jobs and money so it will never be.

Anyway all of the above is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree,

Morkai
 
Old Oct 12th 2002, 7:43 pm
  #8  
Steggy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

Morkai Kurst wrote:
    > Bob Autrey wrote:
    > > I can't
    > > imagine how this having to have met the person in the past two years
    > > serves any useful purpose for out government, or our society?
    > Umm, how could anyone even conceive of marriage without having met their
    > potential spouse first?

Morkai, it is part of the job of INS to prevent fraud
marriages. You have no idea how many people try to enter
countries, based on a so called marriage, get permission to
stay and divorce. I understand there is even a market for,
money is involved too. One of the things they do is try to
establish that there is a real basis for the marriage. I do
not see anything wrong with that.
--
steg
 
Old Oct 12th 2002, 10:24 pm
  #9  
Morkai Kurst
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

    >>> I can't
    >>> imagine how this having to have met the person in the past two years
    >>> serves any useful purpose for out government, or our society?
    >> Umm, how could anyone even conceive of marriage without having met
    >> their potential spouse first?
    > Morkai, it is part of the job of INS to prevent fraud
    > marriages. You have no idea how many people try to enter
    > countries, based on a so called marriage, get permission to
    > stay and divorce. I understand there is even a market for,
    > money is involved too. One of the things they do is try to
    > establish that there is a real basis for the marriage. I do
    > not see anything wrong with that.


I am well aware of the problems, the UK suffers similary and I have no
problem with what the INS do either. That is why I said I thought that
requirement to have met should in fact be increased. (before anyone jumps on
me for that please go back and read my original post)

Bob said he couldn't see why having to meet in person served any purpose - I
was stating why I couldn't understand why anyone who was serious about their
relationship would even want to get married without having met their spouse
to be in the first place.

I'm a bit confused as to what you think I was saying.. I agree with what the
INS does wholeheartedly - It's a shame the UK doesn't have such stringent
rules about people coming into the country and promptly signing on for
benefits and being given housing. I hate the fact that because so many
people do abuse the system that it makes it so hard for those of use who are
trying to immigrate to be with the ones we love but I do not blame the INS
for that, I blame the people who abuse the sytem.

Morkai
 
Old Oct 12th 2002, 10:45 pm
  #10  
Steggy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

Morkai Kurst wrote:
    > >>> I can't
    > >>> imagine how this having to have met the person in the past two years
    > >>> serves any useful purpose for out government, or our society?
    > >>
    > >> Umm, how could anyone even conceive of marriage without having met
    > >> their potential spouse first?
    > >
    > > Morkai, it is part of the job of INS to prevent fraud
    > > marriages. You have no idea how many people try to enter
    > > countries, based on a so called marriage, get permission to
    > > stay and divorce. I understand there is even a market for,
    > > money is involved too. One of the things they do is try to
    > > establish that there is a real basis for the marriage. I do
    > > not see anything wrong with that.
    > I am well aware of the problems, the UK suffers similary and I have no
    > problem with what the INS do either. That is why I said I thought that
    > requirement to have met should in fact be increased. (before anyone jumps on
    > me for that please go back and read my original post)
    > Bob said he couldn't see why having to meet in person served any purpose - I
    > was stating why I couldn't understand why anyone who was serious about their
    > relationship would even want to get married without having met their spouse
    > to be in the first place.
    > I'm a bit confused as to what you think I was saying.. I agree with what the
    > INS does wholeheartedly - It's a shame the UK doesn't have such stringent
    > rules about people coming into the country and promptly signing on for
    > benefits and being given housing. I hate the fact that because so many
    > people do abuse the system that it makes it so hard for those of use who are
    > trying to immigrate to be with the ones we love but I do not blame the INS
    > for that, I blame the people who abuse the sytem.
    > Morkai

OK I got ya. I thought you meant to say: why bother, nobody
will get married without meeting their spouse earlier)

But we are basically agreeing on this. Except for your
political statement about benefits and housing for incoming
people in Europe, let us not start that discussion in this group
--
steg
 
Old Oct 13th 2002, 8:08 am
  #11  
Scarlett
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

    >But we are basically agreeing on this. Except for your
    >political statement about benefits and housing for incoming
    >people in Europe, let us not start that discussion in this group
    >--
    >steg

Absolutely. Because if we did start that discussion I would have to point out
that historically the wealth of England has been built on the English going
abroad (without visas!!) and stripping other countries of their own assets, not
to mention making slaves of their people, and therefore it seems perfectly
reasonable to me that people from other countries come and get back a little of
what we stole. As a nation we don't have an amputated leg to stand on in this
regard. :P

Peace and lentils, man

-=-
Scarlett
 
Old Oct 13th 2002, 9:58 am
  #12  
Steggy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

Scarlett wrote:
    > >But we are basically agreeing on this. Except for your
    > >political statement about benefits and housing for incoming
    > >people in Europe, let us not start that discussion in this group
    > >--
    > >steg
    > Absolutely. Because if we did start that discussion I would have to point out
    > that historically the wealth of England has been built on the English going
    > abroad (without visas!!) and stripping other countries of their own assets, not
    > to mention making slaves of their people, and therefore it seems perfectly
    > reasonable to me that people from other countries come and get back a little of
    > what we stole. As a nation we don't have an amputated leg to stand on in this
    > regard. :P
    > Peace and lentils, man
    > -=-
    > Scarlett

Could not articulate it better
Same goes for Holland. Bali, I saw what happened yesterday,
was part of Holland for a very long time. Suriname. South Africa.
But I've seen discussions like this go out of hand. Off
Topic it is.
--
steg
 
Old Oct 13th 2002, 10:49 am
  #13  
Scarlett
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Just to clear things up.....

    >But I've seen discussions like this go out of hand. Off
    >Topic it is.

Okey-doke. Hand over mouth, mumbling, 'won't say another word on the subject'


 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.