free to marry

[babybunny 2]

This is nonsense, john and marlene.

He can file for the I-129F ASAP. Divorce are regulated by state laws and one is free to marry anywhere as long as they comply with THAT STATE'S laws. He is not a bigamist because hes already divorced. I-129F and immigration are federal matters and the federal govt will look at the generic way of divorcing a marriage common among all states, which is the decree and thats what they will go by.

They have no time to look at what state requires what time to remarry. They are not that smart anyway otherwise they would be working at the court house!

Although you may not be free to marry in the state you reside are you not free to marry in say Las Vegas? And it appears it will be a moot point anyways as you will surely wait quite a while for your visa, so that with the 90 days you get on your visa to marry you will be able to fufill your states requirements. This is purely speculation on my part, you may wish to check in with a lawyer on this, there are some who do free online consults.

No, you are not free to marry anywhere until the specified time has passed. If you remarry anywhere in the world before the specified time, you will be a bigamist.

yes and no.

the goverment are stupid but, they are SMART enough to ask you the dates and compair at interview.

I would be very carful because of Mispresentation. when all you gotta do is chill. or if you wanna marry faster than the " cool off phase" try asking the judge for a wiver. some states have this option.

[rebeccajo 14]

queen becca patted me on the back. i must note this historic day on my calendar

Kneel, knave.

[TomLena 0]

Hypothetical situation:

Someone is 18 years of age and living in the United States. They sign a document that states the following:

I am legally able to and intend to drink alcohol within 90 days of my reaching the age of 21.

in the case of the above, the writer's english teacher would use lots of red marks on that

i am legally able to (present tense - and wrong as the person is 18)

a more accurate statement would be: when i am legally able to i intend to drink alcohol within 90 days of my reaching the age of 21.

Actually, the 'I am legally able to' can be equated to saying 'I am legally entitled to'. Now read it again with that word replacement. The two sentence fragments actually mean the same thing... or, if we wanted to make it more clear but grammatically incorrect, as a double-negative is a 'no-no'...

I am not legally unable to...

.

You get an 'F'

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

queen becca patted me on the back. i must note this historic day on my calendar

Kneel, knave.

as thou commands queen becca

[babybunny 2]

.......but I'd like to see evidence of that actually having happened before I will advise someone that this is black and white.

Jen

Not me. A denial is far worse to overcome than an RFE. Personally I would not like to have my advice be a contributing factor to someone's denial.

The question is whether you have a divorce decree. If yes, then you can file your I-129F.

You have the option to wait the 6 months, and waste time that way but USCIS does not care about the 6 months period because they know you have the choice of getting married in another state that does not have residency requirements like Nevada.

You dont have to get married in the state you live in or the state you got divorced in, as long as you dont break any laws.

That's some pretty strong advice to give someone that could potentially open the door to their petition being denied.

BEFORE EITHER OF YOU GET DEFENSIVE you will be well served to remember that posters in this type of forum sometimes make shotgun decisions based on one response they get.

I agree with you becca!

[Ban Hammer 13,283]

Hypothetical situation:

Someone is 18 years of age and living in the United States. They sign a document that states the following:

I am legally able to and intend to drink alcohol within 90 days of my reaching the age of 21.

in the case of the above, the writer's english teacher would use lots of red marks on that

i am legally able to (present tense - and wrong as the person is 18)

a more accurate statement would be: when i am legally able to i intend to drink alcohol within 90 days of my reaching the age of 21.

Actually, the 'I am legally able to' can be equated to saying 'I am legally entitled to'. Now read it again with that word replacement. The two sentence fragments actually mean the same thing... or, if we wanted to make it more clear but grammatically incorrect, as a double-negative is a 'no-no'...

I am not legally unable to...

.

You get an 'F'

yawn. i am legally able to. i am legally entitled to. as the case above assumes the writer is 18 at the time of such, his entitlement is in the future and as such is conditional upon him or her reaching 21. as the writer has not yet reached 21, the entitlement does not yet exist. for all we know, the writer could be in jail on his 21st birthday and so much for that "entitlement"

[babybunny 2]

This is nonsense, john and marlene.

He can file for the I-129F ASAP. Divorce are regulated by state laws and one is free to marry anywhere as long as they comply with THAT STATE'S laws. He is not a bigamist because hes already divorced. I-129F and immigration are federal matters and the federal govt will look at the generic way of divorcing a marriage common among all states, which is the decree and thats what they will go by.

They have no time to look at what state requires what time to remarry. They are not that smart anyway otherwise they would be working at the court house!

Although you may not be free to marry in the state you reside are you not free to marry in say Las Vegas? And it appears it will be a moot point anyways as you will surely wait quite a while for your visa, so that with the 90 days you get on your visa to marry you will be able to fufill your states requirements. This is purely speculation on my part, you may wish to check in with a lawyer on this, there are some who do free online consults.

No, you are not free to marry anywhere until the specified time has passed. If you remarry anywhere in the world before the specified time, you will be a bigamist.

wanna bet???

The USCIS is very aware of state laws. They even have a legal staff to review things like this for legal opinions. I would even think that the final court order that he intends to submit even contains to words that cannot legally remarry for six months. Sure...go to Las Vegas...they will issue a marriage license to anyone who want to get married. They dont even care about seeing previous divorce papers....but that will not make the marriage legal in the eyes of the home state as it is voidable by any court in the home state on the motion of any party who would have standing with the court....like a previous spouse. Might as well get a divorce in Guam....make look good on paper but is voidable in the home state as the states that Im aware of have laws about voiding divorce decrees received in other states that were granted only as a means of circumventing to family laws of the home state. The USCIS will not honor such divorce decrees either under the concept of Full Faith and Credit provisions of the US Constitution, as each state reserves the right to make their own Family Law.

you are right here Fox!

Stop the gripe. The only reason he cannot re-marry is because the divorce decree expressly states so i.e. he cannot remarry 6 months from the divorce date.

Stop all the other side shows. If the decree did not say so, USCIS would not give a hoot.

Not true.. mine did not say so. but, I was informed on another paper I had to wait 30 days.

Stop the gripe. The only reason he cannot re-marry is because the divorce decree expressly states so i.e. he cannot remarry 6 months from the divorce date.

Stop all the other side shows. If the decree did not say so, USCIS would not give a hoot.

I suggest that you never become a lawyer. This is the worst advice Ive read read here. He simply is not free to marry, and you cant circumvent that as the home has jurisdiction on the matter, and always will. He cannot remarry because it is the state law....and the USCIS will go by the state law.....period!!

agreed!

listion to the man!!! he knows what he is saying!

Wrong.He did not state that his decree wrote that. He only said that the state laws had the rule. Its one thing for state laws to say one thing (USCIS may not know or wont check) and another when its in the decree for all to read.

Theres no rapid fire on my end, maybe you are the one who is looking for fights to pick with whoever is in the mood for such.

Stop the gripe. The only reason he cannot re-marry is because the divorce decree expressly states so i.e. he cannot remarry 6 months from the divorce date.

Stop all the other side shows. If the decree did not say so, USCIS would not give a hoot.

But the decree did say so and therefore your initial advice was in error. Had to OP not stayed with the thread he possibly could have made a decision based on your rapid-fire postings and opinions which would have caused him more grief than this delay he must now face.

You seriously need to get over yourself.

It dont matter if the degree said it or NOT. the USICS go by laws set by the state. not by your assumptions.

what your telling him is cause for denial on MISREPRENTATION! look it up will ya.

Wrong.He did not state that his decree wrote that. He only said that the state laws had the rule. Its one thing for state laws to say one thing (USCIS may not know or wont check) and another when its in the decree for all to read.

Theres no rapid fire on my end, maybe you are the one who is looking for fights to pick with whoever is in the mood for such.

Stop the gripe. The only reason he cannot re-marry is because the divorce decree expressly states so i.e. he cannot remarry 6 months from the divorce date.

Stop all the other side shows. If the decree did not say so, USCIS would not give a hoot.

But the decree did say so and therefore your initial advice was in error. Had to OP not stayed with the thread he possibly could have made a decision based on your rapid-fire postings and opinions which would have caused him more grief than this delay he must now face.

You seriously need to get over yourself.

take your own advise!

you are wrong because if the decree did not state it, then divorce in one state cannot bind you to any future actions as to what you can do because USCIS and everyone knows that u can go to another state and divorce.

you have a LOT to learn. did you know that if you divorced in another STATE than which you are a resident of. the divorce is NOT VALID. example you are living in NJ. and decide you wanna divorce tomorrow.

so you go to Las vegas get a quicky divorce. bad example you have to live there at least 6 months.

either way it wont be valid..

you are wrong because if the decree did not state it, then divorce in one state cannot bind you to any future actions as to what you can do because USCIS and everyone knows that u can go to another state and divorce.

In this case, the restriction is in the decree but if it were not, the I-129F would not be denied, trust me.

once again...you have no idea. you cannot go to another state to circumvent the state that has jurisdicition,....and then return to the home state to live. Its a fraude and the home state has laws about divorces obtained in other jurisdictions untaken to circemvent the jurisdiction of the home state. Any lawyer out of law school can tell you this. Come to Nevada and get a quickie divorce (6 weeks of residency) and then go back to Calif (for instance) thinking that you divorce is valid. The California courts will throw it out if you return to live within two years after getting the Nevada divorce. Its family law 101. The home state will vacate the divorce upon the motion of any party that has standing with the court on the matter....for instance the former spouse or her attorney. The USCIS will take the same stance even if no one motions to vacate the foreign state court order.

You really need to get some basic understanding on how the laws work in the country before you post your seat of the pants opinions.

You really want to argue on and on dont you? I never said what you are attributing to me. You just want to argue what you feel competent in, instead of what we are talking about. All I said is that the divorce decree stated he could not remarry in 6 months.

If the divorce decree did not state this, then USCIS cannot deny the I-129F because he can marry in another state. Divorce in one state does not mean you have to remarry in the same state, so USCIS would not deny him because they know the fiance can come here and they scoot to another state and marry. Its up to you to think whether that would be legal or not, but the point is that he can do it, in law. His only undoing was that the decree stated he cannot remarry in 6 months, yet he will have to send this decree to USCIS.

So stop twisting my statements to suit what you feel comfortable to exhibit your knowledge in.

you are wrong because if the decree did not state it, then divorce in one state cannot bind you to any future actions as to what you can do because USCIS and everyone knows that u can go to another state and divorce.

In this case, the restriction is in the decree but if it were not, the I-129F would not be denied, trust me.

once again...you have no idea. you cannot go to another state to circumvent the state that has jurisdicition,....and then return to the home state to live. Its a fraude and the home state has laws about divorces obtained in other jurisdictions untaken to circemvent the jurisdiction of the home state. Any lawyer out of law school can tell you this. Come to Nevada and get a quickie divorce (6 weeks of residency) and then go back to Calif (for instance) thinking that you divorce is valid. The California courts will throw it out if you return to live within two years after getting the Nevada divorce. Its family law 101. The home state will vacate the divorce upon the motion of any party that has standing with the court on the matter....for instance the former spouse or her attorney. The USCIS will take the same stance even if no one motions to vacate the foreign state court order.

You really need to get some basic understanding on how the laws work in the country before you post your seat of the pants opinions.

yes they can

mind does not state it..

You really want to argue on and on dont you? I never said what you are attributing to me. You just want to argue what you feel competent in, instead of what we are talking about. All I said is that the divorce decree stated he could not remarry in 6 months.

If the divorce decree did not state this, then USCIS cannot deny the I-129F because he can marry in another state. Divorce in one state does not mean you have to remarry in the same state, so USCIS would not deny him because they know the fiance can come here and they scoot to another state and marry. Its up to you to think whether that would be legal or not, but the point is that he can do it, in law. His only undoing was that the decree stated he cannot remarry in 6 months, yet he will have to send this decree to USCIS.

So stop twisting my statements to suit what you feel comfortable to exhibit your knowledge in.

here you go again....doesnt matter what the decree sez....if its in the state law that has jurisdiction, then USCIS will go by those state laws.

you cannot legally get married in another jurisdiction......its a voidable marriage. USCIS will not recognize a voidable marriage.

They are not just a bunch of bumpkins sitting there....when they see a decree of divorce and they have some issue with it...they will send it to their legal department for an opinion. They probably have a pre-prepared checklist of the salient points of each state when it come to divorce decrees..I really dont know nor care.

Ive seen ppl here get RFD because they obtained a mail order divorce from the Superior courts of Guam. You dont even have to appear there to obtain one. Even though no one in the home state contests the issue, the USCIS will still disalow it, as it is voidable.

How much do you want to continue?? please get an idea first before you start posting this stuff. Some one might actually rely on your information.

\

desert fox is RIGHT.

I agree with him because, I was also divorced enough times to know how it relates to USICS.

[TomLena 0]

yawn. i am legally able to. i am legally entitled to. as the case above assumes the writer is 18 at the time of such, his entitlement is in the future and as such is conditional upon him or her reaching 21. as the writer has not yet reached 21, the entitlement does not yet exist. for all we know, the writer could be in jail on his 21st birthday and so much for that "entitlement"

Double yawn.

I am able to and intend to attend the meeting on September 15th.

Or you could say:

I will be able to attend the meeting when it is September the 15th.

These sentences mean different things to those who are savvy enough to comprehend. The first is a statement of intention, while the second is a statement of guarantee. The first is a statement as of the circumstances at the time of the signature. The second is a statement as of what the circumstances will be in the future. Can you see yet why the wording is what it is?

I will still say, just to remind everyone... How the sentence translates and what it actually means is still irrelevent when it comes to the goal here, which is to bring these two people together ASAP... what matters is how the USCIS interprets it. Back to the 'he who holds the gold' rules. It would just be nice if we lived in an ideal world where we didn't need so many rules.

Edited August 6, 2006 by TomLena

[babybunny 2]

I dont think what desert fox is relevant to the matter we are talking about here. No one said go and get a divorce in Guam. We are talking about whether this guy can can re-marry in 6 months. I dont know what dersertfox is trying to say, but bottomline is that the decree here says he cannot re-marry in 6 months. This guy did not get married in Guam, for the record.

And people should be very careful about relying on what desertfox says, as a rule, because not everyone who speaks the legal language can deliver on legal advice, as is clear in this case where the questions being answered by desertfox are not the questions asked.

You really want to argue on and on dont you? I never said what you are attributing to me. You just want to argue what you feel competent in, instead of what we are talking about. All I said is that the divorce decree stated he could not remarry in 6 months.

If the divorce decree did not state this, then USCIS cannot deny the I-129F because he can marry in another state. Divorce in one state does not mean you have to remarry in the same state, so USCIS would not deny him because they know the fiance can come here and they scoot to another state and marry. Its up to you to think whether that would be legal or not, but the point is that he can do it, in law. His only undoing was that the decree stated he cannot remarry in 6 months, yet he will have to send this decree to USCIS.

So stop twisting my statements to suit what you feel comfortable to exhibit your knowledge in.

here you go again....doesnt matter what the decree sez....if its in the state law that has jurisdiction, then USCIS will go by those state laws.

you cannot legally get married in another jurisdiction......its a voidable marriage. USCIS will not recognize a voidable marriage.

They are not just a bunch of bumpkins sitting there....when they see a decree of divorce and they have some issue with it...they will send it to their legal department for an opinion. They probably have a pre-prepared checklist of the salient points of each state when it come to divorce decrees..I really dont know nor care.

Ive seen ppl here get RFD because they obtained a mail order divorce from the Superior courts of Guam. You dont even have to appear there to obtain one. Even though no one in the home state contests the issue, the USCIS will still disalow it, as it is voidable.

How much do you want to continue?? please get an idea first before you start posting this stuff. Some one might actually rely on your information.

\

give me a break. you have not given ONE FACT to your argument.

prove to us fox is a lier? come on waiting

[asante 0]

Your statement is not true. If your spouse lives in the state you file the divorce in, the divorce would valid.

you have a LOT to learn. did you know that if you divorced in another STATE than which you are a resident of. the divorce is NOT VALID. example you are living in NJ. and decide you wanna divorce tomorrow.

so you go to Las vegas get a quicky divorce. bad example you have to live there at least 6 months.

either way it wont be valid..

[babybunny 2]

Desert,

Stop misleading folks..USCIS doesnt care where you will marry when the fiancee(e') comes over to the US, otherwise they would ask it on the I-129F. They just need to know that the couple will marry somewhere in America. Why should they ASSUME that you will marry in the state you live in now and if so why is that assumption not stated somewhere? And also why assume that you will be living in the same state you are in now?

you know this how?

learn this from where?

Your statement is not true. If your spouse lives in the state you file the divorce in, the divorce would valid.

you have a LOT to learn. did you know that if you divorced in another STATE than which you are a resident of. the divorce is NOT VALID. example you are living in NJ. and decide you wanna divorce tomorrow.

so you go to Las vegas get a quicky divorce. bad example you have to live there at least 6 months.

either way it wont be valid..

stop twisiting the facts..

I said ... if you RESIDE in one state and divorce in another < one neiter of you live in >

the divorce is NOT VALID. your talking to a lady that has been divorced enough times< gaagg > to know

what your saying is doo doo.

[KarenCee 3]

Oh gawd....here we go again....*BIG SIGH*

[babybunny 2]

unfortunately I have done the state divorce and the international divorce thing.

your talking to people on VJ been down the road you and also the road the OP is trying to travel

Hypothetical situation:

Someone is 18 years of age and living in the United States. They sign a document that states the following:

I am legally able to and intend to drink alcohol within 90 days of my reaching the age of 21.

not a valid statement.

coz at 18 your still a minor cant enter a contract as a minor... dont you watch Judge judy?

[asante 0]

You just told us a lie. If husband and wife are residents or live in separate states, one can file in either state.

unfortunately I have done the state divorce and the international divorce thing.

your talking to people on VJ been down the road you and also the road the OP is trying to travel

Hypothetical situation:

Someone is 18 years of age and living in the United States. They sign a document that states the following:

I am legally able to and intend to drink alcohol within 90 days of my reaching the age of 21.

not a valid statement.

coz at 18 your still a minor cant enter a contract as a minor... dont you watch Judge judy?

Edited August 6, 2006 by asante

[babybunny 2]

You just told us a lie. If 2 residents live in separate states, one can file in either state.

unfortunately I have done the state divorce and the international divorce thing.

your talking to people on VJ been down the road you and also the road the OP is trying to travel

Hypothetical situation:

Someone is 18 years of age and living in the United States. They sign a document that states the following:

I am legally able to and intend to drink alcohol within 90 days of my reaching the age of 21.

not a valid statement.

coz at 18 your still a minor cant enter a contract as a minor... dont you watch Judge judy?

I never said that!

my ex lived in CA . I lived in TX.. since I was suing for divorce we did so in TX.

dont twist things up my dear!!! you can NOT use a 3rd state or country for your divorce.

example can use one of those central american divorce things and think your divorce is valid.

yes VJ members have been denied visas for that same thing.

or 3rd party state.

Edited August 6, 2006 by babybunny