## Facts

- A naturalized U.S. citizen petitioner sought K-1 classification for a Cambodian national beneficiary by filing Form I-129F on November 8, 2007.
- The petitioner and beneficiary maintained a long-distance relationship primarily through telephone communications.
- The petitioner had not met the beneficiary in person before filing.
- The petitioner asserted that meeting in person was difficult due to a claimed Cambodian cultural and social practice restricting unmarried daughters from going anywhere with fiancés until marriage.
- The petitioner indicated he would travel to Cambodia if the petition were approved.
- USCIS denied the petition because the petitioner did not establish an in-person meeting within the two years immediately preceding the filing date.
- The petitioner appealed the denial to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO).

## Issues

1. Whether the petitioner satisfied the INA § 214(d)(1) requirement that the parties meet in person within two years before filing a K-1 fiancé(e) petition.
2. Whether the petitioner established eligibility for a waiver of the in-person meeting requirement based on strict and long-established customs or extreme hardship.

## Decision

- The AAO considered the appeal from USCIS’s denial of the Form I-129F.
- The record reflected that the parties had not met in person within the statutory two-year period.
- Based on the available case information, the AAO’s disposition is not stated verbatim; the posture and stated ground of denial indicate the appeal was resolved under the two-year meeting requirement and any asserted waiver basis.

## Legal Principles

- A K-1 fiancé(e) petition requires proof that the parties met in person within the two years immediately preceding filing, unless USCIS grants a statutory waiver.  
- A waiver may be available where compliance would violate strict and long-established customs or would result in extreme hardship to the U.S. citizen petitioner.
- The petitioner bears the burden to establish eligibility and, if applicable, to substantiate waiver criteria with supporting evidence rather than generalized assertions.
- Long-distance communications, without an in-person meeting, do not satisfy the statutory in-person meeting requirement.

## Conclusion

The AAO proceeding concerned whether a K-1 petitioner who had not met the beneficiary in person within two years of filing could overcome that statutory deficiency through an asserted waiver theory grounded in cultural practice or hardship; the denial turned on failure to satisfy (or excuse) the in-person meeting requirement.


In re _______ (The Case of the Proxy Marriage), 2008 Immig. Rptr. LEXIS 12574 (AAO 2008)