< Back to Main News page

The petitioner is a citizen of the United States who seeks to classify the beneficiary, a native and citizen of Mexico, as the fiance of a United States citizen pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(l5)(K).

The director denied the petition after determining that the petitioner had not offered documentation evidencing that she and the beneficiary had personally met within two years before the date of filing the petition, as required by section 214(d) ofthe Act. Decision ofthe Director, dated August 10,2004. Section 101(a)(l5)(K) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1l01(a)(l5)(K), provides nonimmigrant classification to an alien who:

(i) is the fiancere) ofa U.S. citizen and who seeks to enter the United States solely to conclude a valid marriage with that citizen within 90 days afteradmission;

(ii) has concluded a valid marriage with a citizen ofthe United States who is the petitioner, is the beneficiary of a petition to accord a status under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) that was filed under section 204 by the petitioner, and seeks to enter the United States to await the approval of such petition arid the availability to the alien ofan immigrant visa; or

(iii) is the minor child ofan alien described in clause (i) or (ii) and is accompanying, or following to join, the alien.

Section 214(d) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1184(d), states, in pertinent part, that a fiance/e) petition: shall be approved only after satisfactory evidence is submitted by the petitioner to establish that the parties have previously met in person within two years before the date of filing the petition, have a bona fide intention to marry, and are legally able and actually willing to conclude a valid marriage in the United States within a period of ninety days after the alien's arrival.

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(2), the petitioner may be exempted from this requirement for a meeting if.it is established that compliance would:

(I) result in extreme hardship to the petitioner; or

(2) that compliance would violate strict and long-established customs of the 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.

The regulation at section 214.2 does not define what may constitute extreme hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, each claim of extreme hardship must be judged on a case-by-case basis taking into account the totality of the petitioner's circumstances. Generally, a director looks at whether the petitioner can demonstrate the existence of circumstances that are (1) not within the power of the petitioner to control or change, and (2) likely to last for a considerable duration or the duration cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

The petitioner filed the Petition for Alien Fiancete) (Form I-129F) with Citizenship and Immigration Services on December 23, 2003. Therefore, the petitioner and the beneficiary were required to have met during the period that began on December 23,2001 and ended on December 23,2003. In response to the director's request for evidence and additional information, the petitioner failed to submit documentation evidencing a meeting between the petitioner and the beneficiary during the two-year period immediately preceding the filing of the Form I-129F petition. The petitioner submitted four undated photographs of the petitioner and the beneficiary together; two used telephone cards and two receipts from a shuttle service issued to the petitioner on December 23,2003' and January 21,2004.

On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter indicating that she is a full time student with little money. She states that she does not have receipts and is offering a copy of her calendar for the year 2003 instead. Letter from _ dated August 19,2004. The petitioner submits six color photographs including three of the petitioner and the beneficiary together and copies ofcalendar pages referencing the beneficiary's name. The record fails to demonstrate that the petitioner and the beneficiary met between December 23, 2001 and December 23, 2003 as required under section 214(d) of the Act. While the AAO acknowledges receipt of the petitioner's calendar pages and photographs, the record fails to contain primary evidence, as defined in the Initial Evidence Request (Attachment to 1-797) sent to the petitioner by the director, documenting a meeting between the petitioner and the beneficiary as required.

In the absence of substantiating documentation, the provided evidence is inconclusive as to whether or not the petitioner and beneficiary met as required. Further, the record does not establish that compliance with the meeting requirement would result in extreme hardship to the petitioner or would violate strict and long-established customs of the beneficiary's foreign culture or social practice. Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed.

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(k)(2), the denial of the petition is without prejudice. The petitioner may file a new Form 1-129F petition on the beneficiary's behalfwhen sufficient evidence is available. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. See Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not met that burden. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.