Enterline & Partners Consulting | info@enterlinepartners.com

Search
Close this search box.

What is the Two-Year Meeting Requirement Waiver for an I-129F Petition for Alien Fiance?

One key requirement for an I-129F Petition approval and proceeding K-1 non-immigrant visa is that the U.S. citizen and foreign fiance must have physically met within 2 years prior to filing the I-129 Petition with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). Those who have not satisfied the two year meeting requirement and would still like to file an I-129F may do so provided USCIS waives this requirement.

What Must be Provided with the I-129F Petition?

The couple must provide evidence of a physical meeting such as:

  • U.S. Citizen’s Passport Showing Admission Stamps Visiting His or Her Foreign Fiancee;
  • Airline Tickets
  • Hotel Reservations
  • Restaurant Receipts
  • Pictures of the Couple Together and with Friends and Family

When is the Waiver Submitted?

Applying for a waiver must be done in conjunction with the original I-129F Petition filing. There are two scenarios of how a two-year meeting requirement waiver may be granted:

  • If meeting between the petitioner and beneficiary would result in “extreme hardship” to the petitioner;
  • If such a meeting would violate long-standing customs of the beneficiary’s culture.

Extreme Hardship to the Petitioner

USCIS interprets extreme hardship to the petitioner as showing that it is close to physically impossible for the petitioner to be able to meet the beneficiary. For example, the petitioner not being financially able to make a trip to meet the beneficiary or the petitioner not being able to have enough time off work to meet the beneficiary is not viewed as extreme hardship. However, if the petitioner is suffering from a medical condition in which they are physically unable to travel may be seen as extreme hardship. At the same time, the petitioner being unable to travel because they are incarcerated or on parole is also not seen as extreme hardship.

Meeting Prior to Marriage Would Violate of Long-Standing Customs of the Beneficiaries Culture

In situations where it is physically possible for the couple to meet but doing so would violate long-standing customs of the beneficiary’s culture, a waiver may be sought. However, proving that such a meeting would violate long-standing cultural traditions must be backed up by expert evidence. One example may be that in certain cultures, it is a long-established tradition for a couple not to have physically met until their wedding night.

 

For more information, contact us:

ENTERLINE & PARTNERS CONSULTING

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Office
Suite 601, 6th Floor
Saigon Tower
29 Le Duan Street
Ben Nghe Ward, District 1
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Tel: +84 933 301 488

Email: info@enterlinepartners.com

 

Manila, Philippines Office
Unit 2507 Cityland 10 Tower 1
156 H.V. Dela Costa Street
Makati City, Philippines 1209

Tel: +632 5310 1491

Email: info@enterlinepartners.com

Website: http://enterlinepartners.com

 

Article last updated: 18th March 2021

Copyright 2021. This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This article may be changed with or without notice. The opinions expressed in this article are those of Enterline and Partners only.

CATEGORY
time
recent posts
CTA_Collection

Over 18,000 successful customers with Enterline &
Partners, realizing the dream of immigration

Latest News

What Is Adjustment Of Status For U.S. Immigration Purposes?

Under U.S. immigration law, Adjustment of Status (“AOS”) refers to the process through which an individual who is already in the United States applies to change their immigration status from that of a nonimmigrant visa status to that of an immigrant visa status, or “Lawful Permanent Residence”. This process is typically pursued by individuals who entered the U.S. legally on a temporary basis as a nonimmigrant and later decide to stay permanently.  One of the best examples is when a student on F-1 status to attend a four year bachelor degree program is offered a job and qualifies at the end of their studies. They may then be eligible for Adjustment of Status. All AOS Applicants must fulfill certain qualifying requirements in order to apply for Adjustment of Status. They must have entered the U.S. lawfully, such as with a valid nonimmigrant visa and be physically present in the United

Read more >

Delinquent U.S. Taxpayers in Southeast Asia

While living in the Southeast Asian region, it’s easy to forget about U.S. tax obligations, especially if the taxpayer’s income is deemed “minimal.”  Let’s first re-visit our tax filing requirements, where an excerpt is noted right on the last page of one’s U.S. Passport, “All U.S. Citizens working and residing abroad are required to file and report on their worldwide income. Consult IRS Publication 54 …” Tax practitioners may use the standard deduction as the filing threshold. For tax year 2024, single status filers can claim up to $14,600 as a standard deduction. Therefore, if one can maintain and produce supporting documentation that the tax year’s income is below the standard deduction threshold, the taxpayer may opt to not file a U.S. Income Tax Return. However, it’s good practice to still file a tax return  to show the U.S. Internal Revenue Service that your income is below the standard deduction

Read more >

Federal Court of Appeals Rules Against Trump’s EO Ending Birthright Citizenship

A Federal Court of Appeals handed the Trump Administration another blow in its fight to redefine the 14th Amendment ending birthright citizenship through Executive Order (“EO”). The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Administration’s request for an emergency order putting on hold a nationwide ban issued by Seattle-based Judge John Coughenour last month who found the EO blatantly unconstitutional. Judge Coughenour decision was swiftly followed by Judge Deborah Boardman’s decision in Maryland who also ruled that the EO needed to be stopped. While the Trump Administration argued that Judge Coughenour’s ruling went too far, a three-judge panel disagreed and scheduled the case for arguments in June. U.S. Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest, whom Trump appointed during his first term, said that a rapid decision would risk eroding public confidence in judges who must “reach their decisions apart from ideology or political preference.” The other judges on the panel,

Read more >
Vietnam
icons8-exercise-96 chat-active-icon